|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 9:18:32 PM | And I almost forgot to mention this: I do not hijack the thread. I still am talking about creation/evolution issues. If my posts disapear "accidentally" I will write them again and again lol
If you don't abide by the forum rules, your posting privileges will be revoked
Forum Moderator | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 11:36:36 PM | Hey guys, I'm back. I've played both sides of the field on this issue, somewhat, and it's only recently that I've quite found the words to help me explain as to why, so I'll be sprinkling more of my own beliefs into some of this, if only for spice.
To be clear, 'creationism' is, to me, a belief in a 'creator'. It's uncontroversial. It's when you make specific detailed claims about the 'creator' that it tends to all fall apart.
One interesting thing that I noticed in Behe's book was that he makes it plain that he believes he can infer design, specifically intelligent design in the structures of the cell. I'm not entirely convinced that his arguments are completely supported by the evidence, but I can see how he comes to his conclusion. Assuming that it's possible to identify actual design in nature (no mean feat, and I'm not conceding he's truly done so), and granting some tentative philosophical validity to some of the arguments he makes regarding whether or not there can be a supernatural origin for some effects in nature, he makes an interesting case. He even argues that it might be possible to include appeals to supernatural causes in legitimate science, based on some interesting philosophical reasoning. This is toward the end of the book, granted, and I'm not sure if he's gearing up for a final push to proclaim that it's the Judeo-Christian God that did the designing, but he certainly does show that the possibility of a truly alien (in composition, form, basis of life, development, etc.) or supernatural entity that created the universe is no more far-fetched than invoking "steady-state," "alternate universe," or "time travel" hypotheses. This may seem off-topic with regard to life and its development, but looking at it through the lens of logically inferring that a universal creator might have planned for and built in provisions for life, it could be seen to support the design theory.
One big thing that gets me, though. Why does design have to indicate intelligence?
Feral, I have to say I enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions on this topic. I'm glad you took the time, as I believe many wouldn't have bothered, to actually read the stuff from Behe and Johnson instead of just writing them off because of their non naturalistic assumptions.
I appreciate the regard, brother. The thing that I don't want to do, is argue from authority and commit the same logical fallacies of which most Creationists seem to be guilty. That, and I've a genuine interest in understanding the mindset involved. For my part, I do believe that the world and everything in it was created by supernatural forces, but the evidence leads to indications that such was accomplished through naturalistic means. Fair enough. While my deities and the spirits I perceive in nature and the rest of the world are, for me, immanent and eminent, they are, in a sense, not supernatural at all. They are part of everything, and therefore work (in the physical world) by the same mechanisms that science studies. I think one of the downfalls of the ID/Creationist movement is an insistence that the "hand of God, at work in the world" should be observable. Like Late implied with his quote, though, that basically screws you for spirituality and faith. If gods are "provable," that murders their mystery, slaughters the wonder of spirit, really just jacks up any legitimacy to claims of being "above" the mundane. In my belief system, they don't need to be considered "apart" or "more pure" than the "sullied," "base" material world. But, it doesn't mean they have to be evident under a microscope, either. Faith, quite honestly, is a personal, subjective thing. To try and make it objective, to me, would be to render it no longer faith.
Maybe ''death match'' is more accurate since it's hard to see how they can both be true.
For my part, and for reasons I tried to get across just now, I don't view it as a "death match," or even a "grudge match" between materialism (naturalism) and supernaturalism. I think the over-emotional confrontationalism is based on fear (oddly, on both sides) that there may be some form of evidence that absolutely proves one right and the other wrong, by default. It's the getting proved wrong, I think, that gets some people (again, ironically, on both sides - this is, of course, the laymen in both camps, for the most part, I believe) fanatically frenzied during debate and inspires them to unethical means to attempt to discredit the "other side." Just my perception of the situational dynamic, but it's what I tend to see.
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
I would say that this may certainly be the case for many who challenge the theory of Darwinian evolution. And, while it is patently true that some allow fear for the verity of their own beliefs (!) enough to attempt to bolster them by tearing down those of others, I see some merit to alternate forms of seeking to understand the world. To this end, at least Behe's philosophical arguments for potential design are an interesting counterpoint to ontological naturalism, but the smoke-and-mirrors rationalisations he attempts to use for discrediting evolution and advancing as proof of design his own incredulity at the intricacies of life, seriously hamstring the potent philosophical points he might otherwise make. With regard to Johnson, he makes no claim to having a better hypothesis, but seeks simply to discredit evolutionary theory with flawed logic, transparent fallacies, and an appeal to the ignorance of distinctions between ontological and methodological naturalism. I haven't read much more, but I plan to. One thing that seriously disturbs me to no end, however, is the apparent insistence that evolution must be discredited before ID or Creation can be studied or accepted as a possibility. With the vast amount of resources that are available to many Creationist groups, why is there no more science than Behe's previous experimentation being done to attempt to support the design argument?
...should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it
Three times in the first three paragraphs. Amazing. Definitely not fair and unbiased reporting, for one. But, that's not my issue with this article. My question is simple: What evidence is proposed to be taught that is evidence against the theory of evolution? See, here's the thing that messes with ya. And it's a fundamental issue that the public doesn't get, and if the Creationist movement does, they're doing a good job of hiding it. Basically, and again, I gotta give Behe grudging props for at least acknowledging in part the truth, that whatever "evidences against" people might attempt to find, they're not so much so, as simply challenges to the understandings derived from evolutionary theory. In that capacity, I'd most certainly support bringing up questions raised in science that evolution does not currently answer. Shoot, that'd be nothing but beneficial. What better way to fire students up than to show them how many questions there are yet to be answered, how many more new things there are to learn about the world?
...when Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.
For my part, I would honestly love to see how this would be accomplished. My father taught biology for twenty-five years, and I was never (until I began looking into the evo/cre debate) aware of the existence, much less the relevance, of what Johnson likes to call "naturalistic philosophy." While, at this point in my life, I realise the educational stunting possible to those never afforded the philosophical underpinnings of modern science, I learned just as well as anyone the rules and understandings of science, causality, and the scientific method. So, it makes me wonder whether, in the course of bringing the concept of ID into public schools, educators would find it necessary to delineate the difference in worldviews underpinning the two viewpoints. Behe's book makes several chapters' worth of reading to explain the basic foundation of ID. Would the same be necessary for relating the potential ability to possibly scientifically infer design? If so, it wouldn't even be a science class, would it? I wonder if the "public" polled really knows what they're voting for here...
“While we don’t favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises,” added Luskin. “The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn about such evidence.”
Okay, I'll be the first to admit I have yet to read all the pertinent literature, but I'm also aware that "Darwin's Black Box" is touted as one of the best "scientific" treatments of this issue. Having read it, and reading this statement, I sincerely hope they're not planning on using any of the "supporting evidence" from Behe to teach this. Plain and simple, in contrast to what this individual apparently believes is true, all they're really arguing for (if they use Behe's material) is for teachers to discuss ID because the hypothesis is based upon philosophical premises loosely backing biased interpretations of specifically selected data derived from scientific evidence.
As far as the Berlinsky interview is concerned, I'd have continued in my interest in him afterward if the whole thing didn't have him showing, in his own words, that he's nothing more than a smug, self-satisfied sophist spouting obscure theoretical possibilities and blatant partisan invective. Two things about this interview strike me as amazingly fascinating. First, that someone decided to equate this guy's solipsistic ramblings to a support for ID or even a coherent argument against evolutionary theory, when it's all nothing but barely understated self-aggrandisement and over-eager ad hominem attacks on, apparently, everyone else. I just get the impression someone wanted to try and find someone who makes antievolutionism (and, I suppose, by extension, ID/Creationism) look cool. Sad really. Oh, yeah, the other fascinating point is that his overall point (at least as far as I can make out beyond the simple bully's desire to pull everyone else down to "lift himself up") is fundamentally no different than Philip Johnson's sad argument that, because some people have a philosophical commitment to naturalism or materialism, apparently this means that Darwinian evolution is nothing better than scientific religion and therefore wrong. Huh. I am continually baffled by the human capacity for paradox, but it flummoxes me entirely that the man can be that supereducated and still have that small a mind.
"God does not play dice with the universe" - said Albert Einstein
"But ideological demagogues insist on applying themselves to games they can't win." - said Feral
Thank you, and good night. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:04:14 AM | Feral, as usual, a well thought out response. Unlike some who just keep repeating themselves. I have lost track of how many times sites like discovery.org and others have been posted (Like almost every page) and each time the errors are pointed out. But again it is posted. I guess some people believe if you say it over and over and over and over, it some how makes it true. Or the other side will get bored sooner or later and stop playing.
Again I ask where is the evidence? Where is the science? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:06:32 AM | Bigbadwolf, you're spamming-- i.e. putting the same post in multiple threads. That can get you suspended, and it won't be because you're arguing against evolution.
Regardless, I read your links, and I didn't find them profound or thought-provoking. What does a badly worded poll have to do with evolution as a valid science? I agree with Feral in his analysis of it. Who wouldn't want to hear contrary scientific evidence, as long as it was, indeed, scientific? That's what is so great about science-- it constantly refines itself.
BUT, if the Darwinian theory in question is solely the ORIGINAL theory, then the poll question is based upon a false premise-- akin to asking, "Should you: A) Stop beating your wife; or B) Continue beating your wife?" Wow! Most people answer A. Fascinating...
The original theory has been refined (as I aluded to before) and is not the same theory Darwin originally posited. If he were alive today, he would totally agree with this process. There is definitely evidence against the original theory-- that's why it has been refined as new evidence has come to light.
 Next! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:10:57 AM | ^
that's why it has been refined as new evidence has come to light.
Unlike some other "theories" that deny the evidence rather then adapt. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/16/2006 2:07:39 PM | Thanks guys. I just tend to see the overall shape of things and can sometimes unravel the interconnections of the core suppositions. It's a talent.
BUT, if the Darwinian theory in question is solely the ORIGINAL theory, then the poll question is based upon a false premise-- akin to asking, "Should you: A) Stop beating your wife; or B) Continue beating your wife?" Wow! Most people answer A. Fascinating...
The only thing I have with this analogy is that it assumes relevance. The poll they're talking about is, as long as people aren't given all the definitions (and I'm pretty sure they're not, otherwise the numbers might look a bit different), more akin to asking, "Should you: A) Continue beating your wife, or B) Get voted king of Siam." | |
|
teajey
|
Joined: 1/1/2006
Msg: 3582 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:59:33 AM | | Feral, lets assume nature really is a closed system of physical causes and effects. I think we can all agree It has somehow produced, what appears to be at least, some pretty amazing things including humans and the type of world they find themselves in... It HAD to have, since, as was assumed, there is nothing beyond nature to accomplish it. We can propose any timeframe or naturalistic mechanism we like, but it's hard to argue with the results that objectively exist all around us. What I'm trying to say is this : intelligence had to have evolved naturalistically because nature is all there is. Intelligence has produced technology through naturally existing potentialities, laws and materials. Therefore, technology itself is a natural byproduct of intelligence just like glands on certain frogs tend to excrete hallucinogens on their back sides. Do we question the "evidence'' of design in our own technology, even though it is, if what I'm saying makes any sense, a product of purely natural processes? Just because we are able to observe and participate in the development of our own technology does nothing to alleviate it's ontological status as a purely naturalistic enterprise. We may think we've designed something just as some may think design is evident in the structures of biology but this is illusory because a purely mechanistic framework doesn't allow for such things as design. If there is something ''extra natural'' about our technology that excuses it from the normal criticisms associated with the design inference in the natural world, are we still working within the framework of a purely naturalistic universe? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/26/2006 11:46:30 AM | | On the surface, this makes sense. However, it requires adherence to a supreme naturalist view of the universe. Belief that, because mechanistic/naturalistic causes and effects are all we observe, that must be all there is. Fine and dandy for scientific endeavour, since, lacking any way to observe or measure anything supernatural, we are confined to naturalistic explanations. However, belief and faith make it possible to postulate existences beyond our material universe, and that's fine as well. For my part, accepting only purely mechanistic forces involved bothers me. It simply reeks of determinism, and I prefer to think otherwise. However, I do agree that, failing any tangible, observable method of reaching the "supernatural," human observation of cause and effect truly is constrained to the naturalistic for explanation of naturalistic phenomena. How this effects intelligence, I'd have to say, is a bit of a toss-up. I don't doubt that naturalistic science might someday discover the developmental path and origins of intellect. Until then, and failing a concrete materialistic explanation for something that doesn't appear to be decisively materialistic, I choose to accept that my mind, my personality, etc. are gifts of the gods. Whether it might be proven that they were given through naturalistic means or not probably won't affect that personal conclusion. | |
|
teajey
|
Joined: 1/1/2006
Msg: 3584 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/26/2006 4:33:45 PM | | In all honesty feral, I don't buy the materialist idea either. I was only adopting that position to make a point. If it's true that nature is all there is, then the emergence of human intelligence and it's subsequent by-product : technology, are completely natural processes. They would kinda have to be wouldn't they? Thus, by extension, we have ample evidence of completely naturalistic design in the form of our very own HUMAN technology. Bizarre I know, scientifically irrelevant perhaps, but, if we DO have evidence of naturally occurring design right under our noses, that we all agree IS evidence, then maybe the world is more complex than materialism has the explanitory power to contend with. Hey, I'm just making all this up as I go along so I thought I'd throw this out there to see what you'd say. Take care. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/26/2006 9:55:18 PM | | I'm not sure I quite agree with your assessment, there, Teajey. While it's certainly possible that the "naturalistic design" of the human mind could possibly be proven, the technology is not necessarily an outgrowth of organic function. It seems to me more that the human brain/mind is a completely natural process, but technology (at least beyond a certain extent) does not necessarily qualify. Maybe I'm looking at it from a dichotomous perception of organic vs. inorganic, though. Not sure about that. | |
|
teajey
|
Joined: 1/1/2006
Msg: 3586 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/27/2006 9:26:14 AM | | Although technology is not a biological outgrowth of organic function, I still think it's a natural outgrowth that exhibits design. When we were ready, the spear was an outgrowth to benefit our survival, then it was the bow, the gun, the missile etc. I believe that, at a certain stage in our biological evolution, these things, or at least something like them, were inevitable. If technology fails to qualify as purely natural, then at some point, something ''extra natural'' has crept into the mix, meaning the pool of possibilities was never really natural to begin with. Maybe I'm making a mistake by not differentiating between organic and inorganic evolution, I don't know, but the one does seem to flow quite naturally from the other. I'm guessing here, but I think if we were to survive for a few hundred more years, continuing to develop our technology, it would eventually start to resemble biology. Why bother making products mechanically when we can engineer and grow devices with self replicating abilities based on codes we have programmed into them. There could also possibly arise implants and artificial limbs that were technological/organic hybrids, again, blurring the boundaries between the organic and inorganic. IF this were to happen, I wonder at which point we would consider the possibility that perhaps biology itself was a manifestation of high technology, through nature, and religion may have had a point all along. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/27/2006 9:35:47 AM | Kitten05:
Please try to seperate your thoughts into intelligable paragraphs and not one huge jumble of sentences.
The fact that it would be nice that there was a supernatural arbiter of justice to exact penalties on all persons who behave unethically does not prove that there is such a being by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that there are verses written in the bible is not historical documentation. And this is definately not the topic of the thread.
The argument you have just presented is about the least scientific one I have read in this thread so far. I cannot even see how it relates to Creationism or Evolution in this context. However, I commend you on your civility and tact.
Also, this thread is not about accepting or refuting Christianity as evolution has nothing to do with religion at all. In fact many scientists who support evolution are devout Christians themselves. And don't you think its a little arrogant to presume that people who don't worship the same God that you do (or any God) are not aware of their own finite mortal existance? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/27/2006 6:58:08 PM |
Although technology is not a biological outgrowth of organic function, I still think it's a natural outgrowth that exhibits design. When we were ready, the spear was an outgrowth to benefit our survival, then it was the bow, the gun, the missile etc.
I dunno, Teajey. While I don't necessarily disagree (in that I just don't know for sure), I see it more as that the spear, bow, etc./technology in general were more of an effect of the biological evolution that gave our forebears the intellect to extrapolate and imagine new uses for organic things in their environment. Later, of course, the existence of technology as part of the environment would factor in as a selection factor in a form of biological/technological feedback loop. I think I see what you're saying, but I simply don't know how one could infer natural design from something consciously designed by natural beings. Perhaps there may be further developments observed in other tool-using organisms to help cast light on this. It truly is an interesting line of enquiry.
If technology fails to qualify as purely natural, then at some point, something ''extra natural'' has crept into the mix, meaning the pool of possibilities was never really natural to begin with.
Which is one reason I'm reluctant to accept pure ontological naturalism as an a priori foundation for the universe. I believe the existence of minds capable of observation, consideration, extrapolation and imagination, while fully capable of having been entirely naturalistically evolved, still points to the existence of an understanding beyond the mere mechanics of the universe. This sort of "metanatural" function of a species' mental development simply seems to me to be a sort of "next step" in evolution, but does give rise to a host of questions regarding the development of the consciousness. Sort of, when does that "eureka moment" factor into the overall evolutionary development of a species, kind of gig.
IF this were to happen, I wonder at which point we would consider the possibility that perhaps biology itself was a manifestation of high technology, through nature, and religion may have had a point all along.
This is an interesting point and does raise many interesting questions. I think, as far as that goes, however, it's more a matter of humans' biological understanding "catching up with" or coming back in sync with their mechanical understanding. Not being much of a technologist, I really couldn't say, but it does strike me a as simply a fusing of disparate forms of knowledge, another metacognitive/potentially "metanatural" ability of the human race.
Regards the point religion may have, it struck me recently (actually, during reading Behe's book, since he references a few alternate theories regarding the potential origins of life) that one of the theories regarding a potential origin involved clay crystalisation and its potential for specific-area reduction of entropy within a larger system and how this might have contributed to the original self-ordered structures later to differentiate through molecular biochemistry into the macromolecules of life (okay, yeah, a really bad paraphrase of the actual hypothesis, but it's something involving all of that). Taking all this in mind, one remembers that the three major world religions and a good number of the others reference, as an origin for the species at least, having been made from clay or the "dust of the earth. How all this factors into the comment about religion having had a point all along is that, if there is a way to investigate and potentially give evidence that there is a point where natural processes (ie, the simple functions of pattern recognition and stimulus-response of a "lesser" brain) develop into the complex workings of a metacognitive, or "metanatural" (signifying "greater" than the original workings of nature, and yet having grown out of them) mind, it may also be possible that there is (taking a page from Jung) a "metanatural subconscious" which comprises, like the genetic and cellular matter that helps us comprise a picture of biological history, a "collectively subconscious" picture of the intellectual development of the species. Makes me wonder, at any rate.
Almost wish I'd seen the post MLR references, but I realise it's probably a good thing I didn't, eh?  | |
|
Theta
|
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 3589 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/28/2006 5:07:20 PM | Dust of the earth, hmmm... Interesting. One interpretation of this is that dust of the earth was the smallest particle known to ancient man. Modern science identified the smallest particle of building block (of life) as atom. God brought particles into existence and connected them forming everything. So "dust of the earth" might as well be a symbolical language.
About the origin of life... In that book mentioned by Behe in chapter 8 "Publish or perish" on page 166 section "In the beginning" Behe writes: " The origin of life qhestion is tremendously important and interesting. Biology must ultimately deal with the question: even if life evolves by natural selection acting on variation, how did life get there in the first place?" Then Behe goes into details about Miller's experiments and polymerization problem connected to it. On page 172 he addresses the issue "origin-of-life chemistry sufferes heavily from the problem of road kill, discussed in chapter 7". Basically, on its own life cannot originate. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3590 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/28/2006 5:43:49 PM |
Behe
Reference the judges comments concerning this witness, in regards to the Dover trial.
re: "Lies", "Deceit", "Not science"
This puppy don't play catch. | |
|
teajey
|
Joined: 1/1/2006
Msg: 3591 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/28/2006 6:36:11 PM | | Theta, I have never read Behe's book but I have heard a fair bit about his argument for irreducible complexity. I thought it made some sense, but apparently, many in the know seem to disagree. Oh well, I guess that's to be expected. Feral, If internet dating has emerged as a selection factor within your proposed technological / biological feedback loop, I hate to be the one to say it, but our species' chances of survival, at least with regards to procreation, are grim at best :-( . Still, it's been fun kicking around a few ideas with ya. Since this thread never dies, ( it may eventually need it's own forum category ) , perhaps we can do this again some time soon. Take care guys. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/28/2006 8:10:17 PM | Well, this is your personal oppinion. There is a freedom of speach in this country, right? Behe is a scientist. Are you?
Theta:
You are obviously not a scientist either so what is your point? If you are suggesting he can't speak without officially expert knowledge then apply that rule universally and cancel yourself out of the discussion. Behe is a about as credible with real scientists as Doctor Suess.
Also, look into the word scientist a little more closely before you start classifying persons posting in this thread as non-scientist. We have actually had persons involved in this discussion that have academically earned such stature. They tended to agree with the views of the person you are attempting to patronize. | |
|
Theta
|
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 3593 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 4:22:11 AM | Come on guys, I am just posing my oppinion, just like you are . I am not patronizing. Are you? this is creation/evolution forum, right? So we are talking about creation/evolution stuff. Behe is not a creationist. He respects Darwin very much. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3594 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 7:52:45 AM |
this is creation/evolution forum, right? So we are talking about creation/evolution stuff.
Actually the topic is about the scientific validity of creationism/ID, ...read the OP.
Behe's ideas have been tossed out by scientists for the "bad science" in them, they aren't the only ones, read the transcripts of the Dover case, the Judge made it clear in his findings that this is a scam to get religion into the science curriculum. This is all old news on this thread. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 9:54:11 AM | Wow! This thread is a killer. I have to take a day off from work to read all these posts.
I just have one thing to say --- It is not “Creation versus Evolution”, “It is Creation and Evolution.”
Let me elaborate if I may…
We are talking about an evolution that was created by an entity known as God. Evolution just could not have happened by its own.
Where God came from? That is a completely different question and probably beyond our imagination. But looking at everyday creations, it is clear to me that --- It could not have created on its own. Some thing has to set it in motion.
Look at the human body for an instance: The miracle ways the different organs work to serve different purpose --- is evident enough that there is a creator. Look at the kidney, the heart and the liver. They are made pretty much of the same stuff but look how differently they work. The way the veins travel through the body without getting twisted or punctured and the way our spinal cord works – is a miracle by itself. Do you know that there is fine hole in the bones for the veins to travel through? And the curves in the bones actually facilitate the veins to move the blood flow without interruption? Could the evolution create such a miracle from one cell based organism? I don’t believe so.
However, I agree that the evolution as described by Darwin in his theory is also a valid scenario, because we can see proofs that support this theory. But no one can prove that an entity didn’t actually create that first organism. So then how the religious teachings that we came from Adam, can be explained?????
Here is what I think happened, that could prove both as true. According to most famous religions, God decided to create Adam and put him in the heavens until he and Eve broke the rule (the forbidden fruit incident). It was God’s greater plan to send Adam and Eve to earth to prove their worthiness and to gain forgiveness. But possibly at an even earlier time, God created the earth, where the process of evolution started according to his choice. When it was time to create Adam and Eve God created them according to the already ongoing process of evolution on earth, a way that they will blend them nicely with the rest of beings here.
Let me give you an analogical example:
The automobiles (cars) are going through an ongoing evaluation ever since they were invented. Whether it was Karl Benz or Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot who created it first and whether it was based on the designs by Leonardo da Vinci, the fact is that, someone created automobile a long time ago and ever since it is going through an evolution. There are many car companies out there, but if a new company wants to come in and make a new brands or a new kind of automobile, they have to use available information and base their creation according to the existing scenario (i.e. gas engine, all the current accessories etc) to be successful. Of course they can make a new kind of car if it was feasible and if they have the technology to do so.
God don’t need to create based on already existent information but he certainly can do it to make it blend well with the rest of what was already out here. That was his prerogative.
If you want to understand why God would match it like that with the ongoing evolution when he made Adam --- then you have to seek answers to why we are here in the first place? Why God don’t show himself? Why God is silent? And what is God’s reason to create this world in the first place. These answers are there in most of the famous religions teachings. If you can understand these reasons then you will agree why God would make mankind according to the existing stage of the evolution.
Hence, in my opinion both theory of creation and evolution are correct. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 12:31:42 PM | Come on guys, I am just posing my oppinion, just like you are Actually, you were melodramatically pleading that your right to state your opinion was being infringed upon and then implying that because someone else isn't a scientist they should stay quiet. Now you are implying that I am patronizing you because I called you on patronizing someone else. There is a pattern here.
Hence, in my opinion both theory of creation and evolution are correct.
Creationism is a theory just like presents at X-Mas come from Santa is a theory. Creationism is not a testable hypothetical proposition, it is a religious belief. It belongs in the theological realm and is only correct when applied in that context as a chosen belief. This thread is not about the "correctness" of Creationism as an article of religious mythology, but as to whether or not it belongs in the science class. It doesn't. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 4:23:32 PM | By M. Lizard Returns:
“Creationism is a theory just like presents at X-Mas come from Santa is a theory. Creationism is not a testable hypothetical proposition, it is a religious belief. It belongs in the theological realm and is only correct when applied in that context as a chosen belief.”
What do you think “Darwin theory” is?? Let me give you a hint, it is called “Darwin’s theory” and not “Darwin’s Law” or “Darwin’s fact” or “Darwin’s rule” or Darwin’s formula”. Is that ‘hint’ enough for you?
By M. lizard Returns:
“This thread is not about the "correctness" of Creationism as an article of religious mythology, but as to whether or not it belongs in the science class. It doesn't.”
Okay! So I didn’t have a grand “closing” comment, one that would say that I support both theories to be taught in school especially when they are religion unspecific.
The points in favor of “creationism” were clear in my post for anyone to understand why I think it should be taught in schools. The proofs of God’s hand in the creations are too apparent to ignore. Obviously scientists are leaning towards this fact, that’s why the govt tried to see whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution in the schools. Do you think govt do things completely on their own? Obviously they consulted many scientists and since these scientists have realized its extreme possibilities, they gave a “go ahead”.
Maybe you are angry because the govt didn’t ask your opinion before trying to add this in the school’s teaching curriculum. In that case I don’t know how to console you.
Now the “intelligent design” is an intelligent term because it is religion unspecific. It could even be aliens or just a powerful Entity such as a God. Since in my earlier post I mentioned the attributes of human body is too complex to be created naturally, hence an alternative theory is needed to maintain an open mind towards other possibilities.
My post clearly indicates a possible merge between the two theories and cannot be easily ignored. Yes, you can ignore it because that’s your choice but how do you explain the complexity of some of the nature’s examples??? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 5:53:51 PM |
God brought particles into existence and connected them forming everything. So "dust of the earth" might as well be a symbolical language.
Theta, I'd agree that it's probably symbolic, but what, in our language or even thought processes, isn't? As for God being involved, while I agree that the gods do play a part, there's really no way to be empirically certain.
About the origin of life...
Regarding this, I have to point out:
" The origin of life question is tremendously important and interesting. Biology must ultimately deal with the question: even if life evolves by natural selection acting on variation, how did life get there in the first place?"
The interesting thing here is that, while the book purports to be a challenge to Darwinian evolution, it veers off into strawman country with this. Neither Darwin's original speculation nor the modern Darwinian synthesis of evolution addresses the origin of life. Hence, it's pretty much simply irrelevant to challenging Darwinian theory.
Basically, on its own life cannot originate.
I would have to say "hasn't been proved to." See, the fact that science doesn't have all the answers is the reason one making such heavy-handed statement turns out to really only be stating one's biased opinion and attempting to use it as an argument from an unfortunately unfounded authority.
Behe ...re: "Lies", "Deceit", "Not science"
Per the Creationist agenda to slip supernaturalist religion into science classrooms, and the methods used by the schol board in the Dover case, I'd have to go with the "Lies" and "Deceit" thing, unfortunately. It's sad, isn't it? However, I don't have any immediate reason to believe that Behe intends his book as such. True it is used as a basis for, and may be influenced by, that very same agenda, but I've never met the man, so I wouldn't presume to speak for his intentions. It may very well be that he believes, using his scientific knowledge and experience to support his observational conclusions (not necessarily unguided by religion) to make his case, he sincerely believes he's making a scientific argument. The unfortunate thing that he is either missing or unwilling to admit is that it's entirely philosophical. Several times in the book, he points out that, without numbers (by which I assume he implies scientific experimentation/observation), the conjectures of Darwinists are nice fictions, but not really science. Then, however, he traps himself in his own bubble, inferring things from a philosophical standpoint, rather than simply relying on science. I really do wonder, though, if he realises it...
I thought it made some sense, but apparently, many in the know seem to disagree. Oh well, I guess that's to be expected.
The problems with Behe's argument of irreducible complexity are pretty simple, to tell the truth. First off, it's been shown that some of the systems he's used to try and demonstrate the concept have been proven to have originated as simpler systems that could evolve or change to fit the current ones. Beyond that, while the analogous examples that he gives (paddle, mousetrap, etc.) appear to work fine as examples, he himself, in his own book, using some biological examples (cillia, for one), actually shows reducibility to such less complex contributory systems that, hypothetically could have been incorporated to form the systems he's using as examples. As for the analogous examples, he uses blatantly ridiculous analogies to describe the potential "evolution" they might undergo to come into existence. The big problem with his argument, as I see it, is that he's trying to use complex biochemical systems to make his point, when the systems are little more than complex chemical chain reactions taking place in environments suited to their occurence. While one could argue that this, in itself, represents a form of irreducible complexity, I don't agree. Ultimately, though, while the concept is compelling, few, if any of his arguments convincingly support the argument, since one finally realises that he's arguing from little more than a philosophically biased position of scientific ignorance. This is not to say he doesn't know molecular biology. He's pretty good at showing that off; it's just that, since as a scientist, he can't explain or understand a given thing, then he can't see a causal link to a possible earlier state. And, if there's no evident causality... Well, you guys can say it.
Feral, If internet dating has emerged as a selection factor within your proposed technological / biological feedback loop, I hate to be the one to say it, but our species' chances of survival, at least with regards to procreation, are grim at best.
Fortunately, while I would be one to claim the potential that internet dating can be a selection factor, it's not the main factor affecting breeding, nor is it species-wide. Were it so, it would certainly be interesting to see how the species developed, though...
Msg 3605
Did I miss more posting that is now lost to posterity? Bugger.
Behe is not a creationist. He respects Darwin very much.
He may well respect Darwin (although I honestly didn't get that from the book), but he certainly has a different view, and tries to denigrate (yeah, that is in the book - although it's pleasantly soft-spoken) Darwin's theory and the insights that have come of it in the past few generations. As for being a creationist, his specific mention of the plausibility of a supernatural intelligent creator brands him as just that. Perhaps not a biblical fundamentalist, but a creationist, all the same.
Evolution just could not have happened by its own.
Could you support that assertion?
Where God came from? That is a completely different question and probably beyond our imagination.
Hence, not scientific, and therefore does not belong in science classes, yes?
The rest of that post was only funny where it wasn't scary in its inability to be fully comprehended. Thanks, Shadow. That hurt... interesting.
Some people say human beings appeared by evolution through mutations (mistakes). Are we, human beings,mistakes of evolution?
Mistakes implies intent. Thwarted intent, but intent nonetheless. Evolution is a process, not a guiding agent.
Tell me honestly you want people here who only support evolution. Other points of view will be mocked. Please, be honest.
Hey, man, I'm honest. I know Red Mother and the Thorn King made life on Earth, I just can't prove it, and fortunately, I don't have to try. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2006 8:21:46 PM | It is simply amazing how closely the straw man fallacies employed in your futile arguments resemble those used by Optimisitc Alyssa (see post 325) and her sock puppet, Rumiko Wildcat, who also posted in this thread late last year.
If you know so much, why dont you show me how the first cell assembled itself using polymerization? This was addressed very early in this thread and refuted soundly. Evolution doesn't deal with an absolute origin of all life. It deals with speciation through generations as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals.
You might as well ask me to explain how Ronald McDonald made the moon out of chalk dust in under 30 minutes. Its a totally irrelevant wild goose chase. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/30/2006 6:20:10 AM | Off-Topic posts will be deleted, if you aren't sure whether you are on-topic, read the OP (below):
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?
(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
If you want to discuss topics other than the above, do a thread search using keywords for these topics, if not found, start a new thread. | |
|
|
| Page 144 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
