• ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.

Critique of evolution

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Wutang

Wutang

Protestant
Heirloom
In the days when the Roosh forums was dedicated to game, evolutionary psychology was often employed in order to understand the nature of women and on how to seduce them as well as in debates over male vs female behavior, particularly in amorous relationship. Roosh was no exception in using the findings of evo-psych in order to facilitate his game. At one point he began to turn his back on evo-psych - not due to religion since this was a few years prior to his conversion but from reading the book "Darwinian Fairytales" which was written by a guy who was a pretty stern atheist.

I myself used evo-psych reasoning especially when I would debate liberals and feminists on how the difference between men and women is biologically and merely social. I even bought The Red Queen which was a book that was often recommended as reading within the PUA community and used it to bolster my arguments. I wouldn't have even considered doubting evolution back then, but now I am more open than ever to hearing arguments against it.

A few years ago I read something by a secular computer science professor who said that mathematically that evolution given the amount of time needed for species to change from one species to another even if you assume the hundreds of thousands of years needed for apes to change into humans. I remember even back then when I wouldn't have thought about doubting evolution that I thought there might be something to it.

We've see examples of microevolution where a species will pick up features that it didn't have before but we still haven't seen a species change from one to another. It seems like a lot of the arguments for evolution don't rely on direct empirical observation (specifically observing a species change from one species to another over a span of generations) but instead of are based on inferences found in say DNA or vestigial body parts. I'm guessing a lot of the debate on the truth of evolution is going to be whether the claims drawn from these inferences are valid or not. They seem to be at the very least "just so" stories in that they certainly could be true but it's not as slam dunk as say, using mathematical proof to calculate whether evolution is mathematically possible or not.

Feel free to add your take to anything related to evolution.
 
Last edited:
I see a big difference between evolutionary psychology vs the evolution of species. I am a young Earth creationist, and I certainly don't believe in evolution in terms of new species arising from selection of the fittest. However, I find that evolutionary psychology has a lot of explanatory power. For one thing, I think children inherit temperaments from their parents, and if certain behavioral patterns are encouraged and discouraged in society, they can become ingrained in that population over a period of generations, mere centuries.

For example, many people say that the Catholic church forbade marriages within four degrees of consanguinity, and that this resulted in a population that was all loosely interrelated, and therefore a high trust society. In contrast, some cultures prefer to have first cousins marry first cousins, to keep property in the family. These cultures tend to feature tightknit clans, where the members of the clans are related, and they can trust each other, but anybody outside the clan, including other countrymen, are aliens, to be robbed, cheated, raped, or killed if opportunity permits.

According to this theory, the high trust Western European culture was largely shaped over as little as 1000 years of requiring marriages between unrelated couples. You could say the difference was entirely cultural, but I think that over time Western European individuals tended to be born with a temperament that fit this pattern. I think if Western Europeans adopt a baby from a cousin marrying society and try to raise them in a high trust society, that adopted child will still tend to display many behaviors that are typical of his birth culture, due to an inborn temperament.

TL; DR I think evolutionary psychology addresses patterns that arise in historic time, and is completely different from the theory of evolution of species, which is said to occur over millions of years. I see things that seem to fit with evolutionary psychology, but I don't believe in evolution of species at all.
 
Last edited:
Thomas More said:
For example, many people say that the Catholic church forbade marriages within four degrees of consanguinity, and that this resulted in a population that was all loosely interrelated, and therefore a high trust society. In contrast, some cultures prefer to have first cousins marry first cousins, to keep property in the family. These cultures tend to feature tightknit clans, where the members of the clans are related, and they can trust each other, but anybody outside the clan, including other countrymen, are aliens, to be robbed, cheated, raped, or killed if opportunity permits.
Click to expand...


Notice a very distinct (religious) pattern in the map below ?!!

41436_2011_Article_BFgim2011137_Fig1_HTML.jpg
 
Even if we are all said to hail from Adam and Eve, how come that there are three groups of human races? Europoids (Caucasoids), Mongoloids and Negroids.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Humans are also all descended from Noah's three sons. Japeth would go on to become the Europoids. Shem the Mongoloids. Ham the Negroids.
Click to expand...

To expound on this, according to my research, both Europeans and Asians stemmed from a migration of Japheth and his sons where they moved north and subsequently branched to the east and west. Shem was the father of the Semites (hence the name), and Ham the Africans. Interestingly if you look up mainstream explanations of proto-Indo-European migrations it's pretty much the same, originates from the area of Ararat and moving north and then spreading westward and eastward.

Noahsworld_map.jpg


IE_expansion.png

en.wikipedia.org

Indo-European migrations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Charles Darwin's deathbed statement, if true, is kind of vindicating. Apparently he regretted touting evolution and accepted Christ. I didn't dig to deep to verify this. Anyone know if it's been validated by the doctor, a family member, a friend, etc?
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Humans are also all descended from Noah's three sons. Japeth would go on to become the Europoids. Shem the Mongoloids. Ham the Negroids.
Click to expand...
If this is a type, which is fine, it is true but only if significant time of selection (pressure) was then placed on the groups, which is what happened.
 
Something I was thinking in regards to evopsych is that it claims that the sort of behavior we observe in humans was ingrained over the process tens of thousands of years. However it seems that if you don't accept Old Earth then there's only a few thousand years available for selection to do it's work which seems to not be enough time for these traits to be imprinted. I think it's enough time for culture to be imprinted but evopsych theories seem to stating that theses psychological behavior are being imported on a more biological, physical level. The classic example that was given within PUA/red pill is that women are attracted to bad boys because they are descended from women that mated with the bad boy caveman of their tribe say 15,000 years ago. Would a lot of these evopsych theories still work if you only believe there was say 5000 years of humans existing as a species?
 
Wutang said:
Something I was thinking in regards to evopsych is that it claims that the sort of behavior we observe in humans was ingrained over the process tens of thousands of years. However it seems that if you don't accept Old Earth then there's only a few thousand years available for selection to do it's work which seems to not be enough time for these traits to be imprinted. I think it's enough time for culture to be imprinted but evopsych theories seem to stating that theses psychological behavior are being imported on a more biological, physical level. The classic example that was given within PUA/red pill is that women are attracted to bad boys because they are descended from women that mated with the bad boy caveman of their tribe say 15,000 years ago. Would a lot of these evopsych theories still work if you only believe there was say 5000 years of humans existing as a species?
Click to expand...
I agree that some evopsych people speak in terms of these longer time frames. However, I think that evopsych actually works over shorter time frames of as little as 10 or 20 generations. It easily has time to work over 100 generations, favoring people in a given culture that have one set of characteristics in their temperament, and disfavoring others.

Also, I would say that most people on Earth still lived in a warrior based culture until only a couple hundred years ago. Strong men capable of violence were by far the most desirable for all women just a few generations ago. At that time, the aristocracy still had an honour based culture, and would go out and duel if one felt insulted by the other. It was unthinkable to try to shirk a duel if challenged, or to fail to offer a duel if insulted. The elite at that time were very much expected to be capable of violence.
 
It may have to do both with outcome independence and the seeming reality that women respond to men who aren't moved by their beauty, which means they aren't disarmed by something that is inherently weak. It's a strange line human attraction walks, to be sure.
 
Long article with some scientific arguments for creationism that I haven't seen brought up before. Some of the ones that caught my eyes was the criticism of the methods that are used to date fossils, rocks and how they are incorrectly identifying objects as being older than they really are.

russian-faith.com

Rejecting Theistic Evolution - Why I Became a Young Earth Creationist

Ten years ago, I had just been “converted” to belief in evolution. In one sense, of course, all of us believe in evolution - it simply means that life changes over time in predictable ways. What I came to believe in, however, was the Darwinian theory of evolution, namely, the idea that all forms...
russian-faith.com russian-faith.com
 
Evolution becomes increasingly untenable the more you examine it, which has led a lot of atheist types to start promoting simulation theory and multiverses. The idea of a multiverse is, of course, complete conjecture with zero supporting evidence - essentially little different from a religious belief. And at root, simulation theory is basically just proposing that the universe was created by omnipotent force that exists outside of our understanding of spacetime - they just can't bring themselves to call this force 'God'.
 
Wutang said:
Long article with some scientific arguments for creationism that I haven't seen brought up before. Some of the ones that caught my eyes was the criticism of the methods that are used to date fossils, rocks and how they are incorrectly identifying objects as being older than they really are.

russian-faith.com

Rejecting Theistic Evolution - Why I Became a Young Earth Creationist

Ten years ago, I had just been “converted” to belief in evolution. In one sense, of course, all of us believe in evolution - it simply means that life changes over time in predictable ways. What I came to believe in, however, was the Darwinian theory of evolution, namely, the idea that all forms...
russian-faith.com russian-faith.com
Click to expand...

Nice article. I think one of the keys to engaging with evolution is examining its presuppositions, which include:

-> The presently observed laws of nature (such as the rate of natural processes) are immutable and have always / will always remain the same as they are currently.
-> Similarity implies direct ancestral relation.
-> Miracles that break the laws of nature are impossible.
-> Intelligent design is impossible.
-> The universe is chaotic & disteleological with matter randomly rearranging itself into order over vast stretches of time.

Objectively speaking there is no reason why any of these should be taken for granted as being true. Like evolution itself, they are non-scientific and non-falsifiable claims that are rather in the realm of philosophy. And foundationally as Christians we reject all of these. But if you accept them as true, then you basically must accept evolution no matter how many stretches you have to make to make it work, because you've ruled out the possibility of contrary explanations.

scorpion said:
Evolution becomes increasingly untenable the more you examine it, which has led a lot of atheist types to start promoting simulation theory and multiverses. The idea of a multiverse is, of course, complete conjecture with zero supporting evidence - essentially little different from a religious belief. And at root, simulation theory is basically just proposing that the universe was created by omnipotent force that exists outside of our understanding of spacetime - they just can't bring themselves to call this force 'God'.
Click to expand...

Yes great point about simulation theory, another nuance that differentiates it from our view of God's creation is that, theoretically, we could create these 'simulation universes' ourselves and become 'gods.' Which is most likely a lie that transhumanists will attempt to sell down the road.
 
The main problem with Darwinian evolution is they like to attach the word scientific to it thats where the big confusion comes in, as you rightly said we have never observed 1 species changing into a different kind nor replicates it in a lab, the very word science basically means observation and experiment, once the word science is divorced from evolution then it falls into another category. Iv also noticed that when animals have minor changes on their bodies they usually lose something not gain, so isnt that the opposite of evolution, like if you have less teeth now?

Keep in mind Darwin himself married his first cousin and all his kids were retarded and one died and it seems like this is what made him mad with God and why he persude this new theory to begin with, it was his motivation, he often donated money to missionaries in tera del fuego in south america because of the great work and change he saw in the natives lives there (real evolution) and apparently he renounced the theory on his death bed anyway.
 
My answer to evolution is reposted from here: https://christisking.cc/threads/orthodox-resources-against-pseudo-evolution.391/page-2#post-12689

I always find it very surprising how many people take evolution as a threat to their faith. It is indeed a dangerous heresy in this sense. However, logically speaking, no scientific theory can challenge God because He can do whatever He wants. He can create us with evolution, or some other mechanism. It doesn't really matter. He created man from dust, which could mean that the dust became the primordial soup that somehow became man. If evolution is true, then it doesn't mean God didn't create man, it just means God created evolution as the process to create man. Just because details are missing from the Bible doesn't mean the details aren't there.

That said, there are serious, secular problems with evolution. Believe it or not, evolution was not accepted by most learned men in Darwin's day because no one could present a working model of how it could work. It was decades later when Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics was discovered, which is a true working model to track phenotypical changes between generations of all lifeforms, and then people starting putting genetics with evolution as a working model, and that is what convinced millions.

However, most people have terrible reasoning and logic, because as explained above evolution does nothing to invalidate God or Genesis, but I think people subconsciously wanted a reason not to believe in God so they could indulge in their sins. Even if God created man through some primate ancestor, it still doesn't change the fact that God controlled evolution to create man. It doesn't mean that evolution can happen without God, as the random chance theory has such low odds of being true it takes infinitely more faith to believe we are here due to luck than purpose.

So on one hand, I cannot understand why people care about evolution, and yet on the other hand, because so many people have used evolution as an excuse to sin, I can see why Christians have come to hate it. I pray that people will someday become enlightened enough to understand human theories as nothing more than guesswork to the mechanisms of God's creation.

analyst_green said:
That being said, the 7000-year-old earth also seems improbable. Such a view requires us to believe man once lived among the dinosaurs. What is interesting though, is that recorded history only goes back about 6500 years. And around that time, all kinds of civilizations started emerging in the Middle East, China, etc. Perhaps the Flood wiped out all antediluvian records. Anything before that is pure conjecture.
Click to expand...

This is another trap I see everyone fall into. People constantly forget that time for God is nothing like time for humans. It says so right in Proverbs 90,

Lord, you have been our dwelling place[a]
in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You return man to dust
and say, “Return, O children of man!”[b]
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.
5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

So a thousand years to God is like a day to us. This also logically means the opposite must be true, even one day to God can feel like a thousand years. Hence why the Apostle Paul said so.

Thus the 7 day creation story is no where near the kinds of days we picture. A day to God could be a trillion+ years. Time is totally mailable to the Lord and he plays with it the same way an artist can arrange colors on a canvass to form a picture.

Since God exists outside of time, it therefore follows there are no contradictions for God, because the law of non-contradiction states someone or something cannot be in two places at once, i.e. they cannot be in two places at the same time. Yet since God exists everywhere, independently of time, it therefore logically follows that there are no contradictions for God, and All things are possible with God, which is why Jesus taught so.

Hence it is impossible for any scientific theory to disprove God, since we can only disprove things with contradictions, which cannot exist for God as everything is possible for God. Therefore if mankind's scientific theories do not match up to the Bible, it is because our scientific theories are incomplete and do not (and probably never will) understand the extent and capabilities of God.

If people were perfectly logical, they'd understand this and there would be a lot less sin and apostasy in this world. But since they are not, they must be protected from complicated theories which serve to confuse and damn others. This is a fairly compelling argument against free speech, by the way - if men are unable to understand complex ideas on their own without risking themselves to damnation, it means it is necessary to provide them with some means to protect them from falsehoods. That 'something' is obviously the Church, who has always had sensible limits on public discourse to protect the foolhardy public from reaching erroneous and dangerous conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top