Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Turnsky on May 03, 2005, 06:02:10 am
-
arguement.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/02/life.evolution.reut/index.html
-
Its really only in america where a significant amount of people outwardly refute evolution, however that article is about something else entirely. It is true that alternate origin theories should be presented in school just for the context but no other theory holds a candle to the massive body of evidence that supports evolution. And if you teach creation stories, you would have to teach all the major alternatives like the hindu creation story and I bet Buddhists have one too.
The key problem is that evolution is taught like it has an intent that is has a purpose and an ultimate goal when the truth of the theory is that it has no such aspects.
-
Creationist theories are already taught in school..... in Religious Education.
It's just stupid to hold them (creationist) out as scientific theories; they've been formulated, proposed and presented as part of religious texts, hence they're not the results/conclusion of a scientific factual investigation, thus they aren't even considerable as science.
Any 'scientific' presentation of creationism, as well, is designed to both select the 'facts' (often twisted) which best support their arguement, and to try and discredit the alternate theory (evolution - and also natural formation of the earth, and soforth) rather than attempt to definitively prove creation.
-
I'm a follower of the Jatravartid religion.
I believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and I live in perpetual fear of The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief. :nervous:
-
And that same ole arguement will go on till God destroys the Earth or some Aliens or a comet does.:blah: or Robots or something Evolves greater than us and takes over the world.
-
I think there are other possibilites. Nothing would make me laugh at myself more than seeing Jesus come back, I'd be slapping myself on the forehead and muttering "Athiest? boy! how wrong can you be?"
But anything can happen, and probably will, and no matter what occurs, everyone will decide that it is proof of what they believe to be true...
1. Meteor strike kills millions - does that prove or disprove the existance of God?
2. Aliens land on Earth - same question.
3. 10 million year old fossil of early man found - same question.
4. The Earth stops spinning - same question.
But I'm sure there are hundreds of instances...
-
You forgot HLP crashing again.:lol:
-
That's more than a 'one off' :p
-
Call me naive, but I really think that this debate is in its death throes. These legal battles we're seeing are, in my view, the last desperate attempts to hold back the inevitable. People will get angry, soap boxes will be stood upon, but, to quote Inherit the Wind, "...progress has never been a bargain."
-
Not if the nuttiest fudamentalists own the soapbox.......
-
Anyone can have a soap box. I could go out and start raving about how goat cheese is under-appreciated, but it doesn't mean I'm going to accomplish anything.
-
Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
I'm a follower of the Jatravartid religion.
I believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and I live in perpetual fear of The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief. :nervous:
I honestly can't remember if that's Hitchhiker's Guide or Discworld.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Anyone can have a soap box. I could go out and start raving about how goat cheese is under-appreciated, but it doesn't mean I'm going to accomplish anything.
Ah, but it's not having a soap-box that's the problem.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
I honestly can't remember if that's Hitchhiker's Guide or Discworld.
HHGTTG (Discworld is the back of a giant turle IIRC)
-
You're right, aldo. Thanks.
-
I'm always right. It's just that reality is inaccurate.
-
I know an explanation that might sooth more angry souls. (insert deity here) caused us to evolve the way we did, simple as that. Of course some ultra religous people might have a problem with that but they just be the craziest peoples.
-
Ah, but it's not having a soap-box that's the problem.
Ehhh, it's not like you need to go out and buy a literal box that says "soap" on it. Anyone can go out in public and make a scene with their cause; it's not hard.
-
BOTH evolutionists and creationists cannot "scientifically" prove or disprove each other. Remember that both macro evolution and intelligent design are NOT in the scientific FACT category and both require a certain level of FAITH.
-
We have seen natural selection happen. If evolution is "faith"-based, then so is all scientific theory.
-
You know there's no such thing as scientific fact, right? All there is is theories with a large amount of backing. Manage to find a whole in them, they have to be modified and adapted to fit the new information provided. They are more fluid, as opposed to static like the ideas espoused by most Creationists, or at least the ones who get all the press.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
I know an explanation that might sooth more angry souls. (insert deity here) caused us to evolve the way we did, simple as that. Of course some ultra religous people might have a problem with that but they just be the craziest peoples.
but that isn't evolution, it's domestication, it isn't natural selection if there is an inteligence behind it.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
BOTH evolutionists and creationists cannot "scientifically" prove or disprove each other. Remember that both macro evolution and intelligent design are NOT in the scientific FACT category and both require a certain level of FAITH.
Evolution (I'm not going to split it up into Macro and micro, since that's not a distinction anyone in the scientific community makes) is about as close to scientific fact as it gets. There's no more faith involved in that than there is in accepting that atoms are made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons, or that electricity works the way it does, or that the sky is blue because of the scattering of light rays through the atmosphere. Live with it.
-
Whether or not life sprung from evolution is debatable. However, whether or not evolution exists is not. Evolution does exist, has existed, and will exist forever, in any living creature.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
BOTH evolutionists and creationists cannot "scientifically" prove or disprove each other. Remember that both macro evolution and intelligent design are NOT in the scientific FACT category and both require a certain level of FAITH.
Sorry Omni. Go back to class and learn how science works.
The fact that you used the term scientific fact proves that you don't understand how science actually works. As Grey Wolf stated there is no such thing.
There is no faith anywhere in science. If it involves faith in any place then it isn't science.
Originally posted by Bobboau
but that isn't evolution, it's domestication, it isn't natural selection if there is an inteligence behind it.
Actually I'm being a little pedantic here but natural selection isn't actually required for evolution. Intelligent selection, mutationism and Lamarckism* are all forms of evolution too (which is why you sometimes here the term Darwinian evolution when someone is trying to distinguish between the types).
Evolution mearly means the accumulation of changes in successive generations.
Darwinian evolution is what gave us humans. Selective breeding (which is a form of evolution driven by unnatural selection) gave us domesticated animals. Mutationism is absolute nonsense (although by definition it must be classified as a form of evolution) and Lamarckism was impossible on Earth due to the way our genetics work but could quite possibly occur in extra terrestials.
* Lamarckism is an older theory of evolution that predates the Darwinian theory. The basic theory is that if a man spends all day walking barefoot he develops calluses on his feet. His children would be born predisposed to grow calluses quicker and quicker until eventually a generation would be born with the calluses already present from birth.
The more biologically astute amongst you will have seen why the theory doesn't actually work in practice and why it was thrown out.
-
I think Darwinian Evolution should be accelerated where Humanity is concerned...
The government in Britain is doing too good a job of slowing it down. People are protected from the consequences of their actions to the extent where they become irresponsible.
-
It's interesting to note that scientific theory is developed by examination of the gathered evidence, whereas religious belief is not. Also probably worth noting that in established theory such as evolution, the 'theory' part tends to mean more it's being constantly revised and refined rather than that there is any scientific likelihood of contradictory and disproving evidence.
Incidentally, I've never understood why (some) people see creationism and evolution/big band (or soforth) as being diametrically opposed. I mean, if God (or ) wanted to explain creation to someone several hundred or thousand years ago, it's not likely He'd go into the details of deoxyribonucleic acid or accretion disks, etc..... you'd expect the supreme diety and creator of the universe to know how to talk down to an audiences level, after all.
-
Exactly, aldo. There are many people out there, myself included, who feel that the scientific theory of evolution fits in fine with the idea of an omnipotent deity creating the universe. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people in this country can't see things that way, and thus you get events like this. Popular Science had a pretty good retort to the decision by one county in Georgia to put disclaimer stickers about evolution in biology textbooks; take a look (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/fyi/article/0,20967,1021333,00.html). :p I love the people who think that "scientific theory" is on the same level as a theory such as "aliens are controlling the government;" did these people ever take a science class in grade or high school? (I'm beginning to suspect that the answer is no. :p)
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
did these people ever take a science class in grade or high school? (I'm beginning to suspect that the answer is no. :p)
and cause they never took it they see no reason why anyone else should either.
-
One thing that did just occur to me.... if there's a biology teacher oppossed to evolution complaining about these things.. how did they ever get accreditation as a teacher?
A second thing is... most people here know I'm not a religious bloke. But at the same time I've never understood why it seems to often that scientific investigation is regarded as not being doable by religious people (something which I think both fundamentalists and the more bigoted aetheists are guilty of). My understanding of religion - which admittedly isn't great or far reaching - always led me to think that there's nothing to preclude trying to understand the world you live in; in a sense it's simply understanding "'s work" anyways.
(furthermore) In my understanding, God (or inse...ach, you know what i mean. Just replace God with the diety of your choice if you think I'm ignoring you) is suppossed to be intangible, unproveable - that's the point of faith. Which at the same time, means God cannot be collected as evidence to form or support a scientific theory; so the work of a good religious scientist and a good aetheist scientist should both be factually correct and indistinguishable. So the whole 'science is incompatible with God' thing - from both sides of the fence - pisses me off.
Of course, I'm one of those people who like equitable compromise........
-
My opinon
Humanity has this desperate need to feel important. That's how God and Creation got here. Because if God didn't make man, then surely that means we aren't the most important thing in the universe, and maybe there isn't a Heaven, and maybe we have to accept the fact that the millions we have killed in arguing over which God is real are gone, obliterated, never to benefit mankind again, and maybe 'I' am next.
That scares people. They respond by sticking their head in the sand and going 'Lalalalala I'm not listening'.
/my opinion
-
You could say pretty much all the best things - and a good number of the worst - were done by people trying to make sure they'd be remember after dying.
Of course, you couldn't prove it.
But you could say it.
Might be wrong though........
where was I?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
A second thing is... most people here know I'm not a religious bloke. But at the same time I've never understood why it seems to often that scientific investigation is regarded as not being doable by religious people (something which I think both fundamentalists and the more bigoted aetheists are guilty of). My understanding of religion - which admittedly isn't great or far reaching - always led me to think that there's nothing to preclude trying to understand the world you live in; in a sense it's simply understanding "'s work" anyways.
(furthermore) In my understanding, God (or inse...ach, you know what i mean. Just replace God with the diety of your choice if you think I'm ignoring you) is suppossed to be intangible, unproveable - that's the point of faith. Which at the same time, means God cannot be collected as evidence to form or support a scientific theory; so the work of a good religious scientist and a good aetheist scientist should both be factually correct and indistinguishable. So the whole 'science is incompatible with God' thing - from both sides of the fence - pisses me off.
Speaking as someone who actually was a scientist at one point (and generally still regards himself as one) I disagree with anyone who says someone can't be religious and a scientist.
However by being religious you've already proved that at least in one field you've denounced the scientific method and simply said that something is true because you want it to be.
That sits a little uncomfortably with the notion of being a scientist. It's like you've noticed a flaw in them and don't know how deep it runs.
In the case of someone like Mongoose who has no problem with evolution is doesn't run deep so I would have no problem with a scientist like him.
However, a scientist who claims evolution is false (and they do exist, although generally not in the biology field) instantly goes in the big red "Do not trust" book regardless of anything else they do. By claiming evolution is false you go even further and are actually doing the exact opposite of science by throwing out evidence you don't like to replace it with something for which there is no evidence.
Any scientist who does that is completely untrustworthy scum in my book because they are doing the exact opposite of what they claim to do.
I have a pet hate for scientists who pick and choose the results they want to accept and discard results they don't like because they actually harm the cause of science with their idiocy. Of course this isn't a flaw that only religious people have. *points at the cold fusion team and the "memory of water" guy*
Originally posted by aldo_14
One thing that did just occur to me.... if there's a biology teacher oppossed to evolution complaining about these things.. how did they ever get accreditation as a teacher?
They teach f**k all evolution in America even at a degree level. I was quite shocked when I was talking about evolution with my biology graduate girlfriend (who studied in New York) and I found that I knew more about the subject from reading The Selfish Gene than she knew.
I wouldn't be surprised if the teaching over here is similarly bad. I once had a biology teacher talk to me about an animal doing something for the good of the species :rolleyes:
-
Ooo, Dogonit, I would really like to get in this topic, but I'm being good.:p
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Exactly, aldo. There are many people out there, myself included, who feel that the scientific theory of evolution fits in fine with the idea of an omnipotent deity creating the universe. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people in this country can't see things that way, and thus you get events like this.
Problem is that vast majority of people like yourself never stick up for evolution when this sort of debate gets started. It basically ends up as atheists and agnostics against fundementalists which is a big pity as I might stand more of a chance of convincing the people in the middle that I was right if there were also religious people saying exactly the same thing about the scientific theories involved.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Speaking as someone who actually was a scientist at one point (and generally still regards himself as one) I disagree with anyone who says someone can't be religious and a scientist.
However by being religious you've already proved that at least in one field you've denounced the scientific method and simply said that something is true because you want it to be.
That sits a little uncomfortably with the notion of being a scientist. It's like you've noticed a flaw in them and don't know how deep it runs.
Well... I agree it can still be an issue. I don't think that, though, it necessarily is always one, in the sense that I don't believe religion negates the ability to perform honest science.
That is, religion in the sense of believing in a higher power, etc. Organized religion, on the other hand, IMO sets boundaries which are dangerous within a scientific context.
-
The thing is that most of the die-hard creationists involved in this kind of thing automagically assume that evolutionists are trying to disprove the bible. They often cannot even fathom the idea that there are people in the world who have not even read the bible.
Simply raising questions about the Origin of the Species seems to mean that you are saying 'God doesn't exist and the bible is a pack of lies', which is a blatant generalisation. There is strong scientific and cultural evidence for things mentioned in the Bible, such as the Great Flood, the 7 plagues of Egypt etc, but simply because science can show how it could happen naturally does not preclude God, after all, is not God the ultimate natural force to those who believe in Him in whatever form?
There are other things that simple common sense, when applied, are genuinely silly, Moses spending 40 years walking across a desert you can cross in less than 6 months etc, which either suggest a mistake, or that Moses' sense of direction was about as good as mine. But people still cling onto them, as though letting go of one tiny inconsistency would bring the entire house of cards down. I cannot define that as being secure in a faith.
Evolution is not about disproving the existence of God, it's nothing to do with Him, it is simply the product of observed results and study. Darwin made some whopping mistakes, which are only now coming to light, Evolution is a massively complex process, and it's transmission wasn't help by the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' which is a phrase Darwin never ever uttered, it was a reporter who coined it.
The study of evolution is evolving itself, it grows and learns from it's mistakes and changes all the time, mistakes have been made, and corrected over time, and yet still the house is standing, that speaks volumes.
-
On the subject of religious scientists (jeez, almost sounds like an oxymoron :)), all I have to say is that many scientists of the past were religious. It comes down to a matter of how much the person lets religion influence his or her work, kind of like separation of church and state. If he or she lets religion influence too much, then their work becomes illegitimate.
Also, I learned about evolution in high school. No one ever cried about it. Then again, I don't live in a very conservative part of the US. However, we had a sex ed program strongly in favor of abstinence, now someone explain that to me.
Science is not perfect and admits it. Organized religion isn't perfect and won't.
-
Isaac Newton created the Newtonian Laws when he was a teenager, he spent most of the rest of his life trying to unsuccesfully turn base metals into Gold using a mixture of pseudo chemistry and appeals to God.
Thing is, I don't remember Genesis ever mentioning God snapping his fingers or saying 'Shnigwiggle' to bring the world into existence, in fact, Genesis only covers product, not method, so who exactly is to say the Evolution isn't exactly what He had in mind? After all, if you'd tried to describe Evolution to people 4000 years ago, they wouldn't have understood it, and the Bible does actually get things generally in the correct order, Light, Stars/Planets etc, Land, Water (creation of the Earths Ecosystem), Plants, Animals, Humans, though admittedly, from a Human Bias, but still, the timeline is accurate. Since God is timeless, it's not like he was in a rush, for all we know, we could still be in the 7th Day ;)
-
Big surprise, the same old, same old, high horse attitudes are popping up. My statement did not bash evolution, yet a number of you still ATTACK perspectives different from your own. Name calling and assumptions of lack of education. Very adult of you.
My main point was to keep an open mind because neither concepts can present conclusive scientific evidence. To suggest that there is no such thing as scientific fact anymore is just relativism BULL.
Faith does not necesarrily denote religious thought. To say that faith has had no place in science shows an enoumous amount of ignorance to how science has progressed. From Isaac to Newton to Einstein, many of the our pivotal scientists did not conjure up their theories purely from the established facts of their time. It took imagination and advanced creative thinking and reasoning. At their moments of revelation, I have no doubt that it took tremendous amount of faith and open mindedness to pursue their out of the box thinking.
From MY perspective:
There is still not enough hard evidence to move evolution from the back of my mind to the front. There is still no evidence of transitional missing links or observable chains of favorable genetic mutations.
The mathematical probablilities behind the random formation of the first (supposedly simple, lol) single celled organism requires much MUCH more time than what Einstein's general relativity theory, which suggests a begining of space-time, would allow.
There are also many other reasons that I do not blindly accept evolution as cold hard fact. It being from improbable constant formation of favorable amino acid chirality to environmental inhospitablility to random DNA development.
-
Also, I learned about evolution in high school. No one ever cried about it. Then again, I don't live in a very conservative part of the US. However, we had a sex ed program strongly in favor of abstinence, now someone explain that to me.
The Federal government provided some hundred million dollars to schools for abstinence-only sex ed. That's basically 'these are some methods of birth control and these are the failure rates...now go out and don't have sex.'
On the topic of evolution, I think that the majority of people's problems stem from it making sense. It's logical. There's evidence for it. But the center of nearly all 'mainstream' religions is faith, not evidence.
Really, what I think should be done is that evolution should be taught in science...but creationism and all that shouldn't be ignored. Because that is still what some people choose to believe, and saying "evolution is fact" is no different than saying "creationism is fact" unless you back up the statement with some evidence.
The problem I have with intelligent design is that it's just bull in the way I hear it used. Hey, great idea, combine creationism and evolution in a politically-correct package and teach is as fact! No. If nobody subscribes to that belief, it shouldn't be taught in any form. If somebody does, see the above guidelines for teaching evolution and creationism (provide evidence).
While I've heard people saying that "NO, creationism should only be talked about in religious class", fact is that this is one point where science and religion crash. Pretending that other people don't think differently and teaching that evolution is the sole explanation for why life came to be as it did is not teaching factually, because there are other explanations for why life came about, no matter how lacking the evidence is. Neither side can disprove the other.
I've probably pissed off both sides now. :D
-
Creationism, IMO, should be taught in Religious Education; i.e. the views of all religions on the issue.
-
Thank you WMCoolmon. Your post is a more elaborate description of the point I was trying to make originally.
I lean toward intelligent design and I'm not offended by your statement.
Both Inteligent design and Evolution concepts were created from an observation of EVIDENCE from different sources.
I think life originas should be taught in a non biased way. Every origin theory (no matter how it was contextually derived) should be presented in schools along with the scientific pros and cons of their details as well as the unanswered questions presented by them. They should also present such a topic in way that leaves the students to make up their own minds and not to teach such concepts with a factual spin. Very unlikely, seeing the way people love their high horses.
I have no problem with evolution being taught in a Biology class as so long as students understand there is a difference between operational science and origin science. Origin science operate on speculative analysis with the available evidence at the moment.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Big surprise, the same old, same old, high horse attitudes are popping up. My statement did not bash evolution, yet a number of you still ATTACK perspectives different from your own. Name calling and assumptions of lack of education. Very adult of you.
Your comment about science being a matter of faith shows a very deep ignorance about what science actually is. There is no faith whatsoever in science. None. At all.
I explained what science was on another thread. Let me dig up the response.
Originally posted on another thread
Science is in many ways the continuous application of Occam's Razor (i.e the simplest explaination that explains all the observable facts is the likeliest one to be true).
When there are multiple theories for something the simplest one is chosen. For instance in choosing whether I exist or am a computer simulation of myself I choose that I exist because otherwise my explaination has to include who built the mainframe, why they built it and also how their universe came to exist.
This choice isn't a matter of belief. I don't choose to believe I exist. The fact is that the balance of probabilities lies much further on the side of me being real than me being a computer simulation. There is no choice involved here. Just simple probability.
Now that this logical question is resolved I go about my day never wondering whether I exist or not. That I exist is taken as a fact (this doesn't actually make it one though). Until the day I die I will continue to act as if whether I exist or not is a fact until I get some evidence that contradicts this. If ever I see my dog get a general protection fault then the theory that I exist now bears examination. It's possible I hallucinated it or it's possible that I really don't.
Now lets take something that is a lot more controversial like evolution. There is a hell of a lot of supporting evidence for evolution. When compared against the other alternating theories there is more evidence in favour of Darwinian evolution than there are for every other theory. That doesn't mean that the other theories are definately wrong any more than it means that I'm not a computer simulation but the fact remains that given the possibilities evolution is way ahead of it's rivals. So again evolution is taken as a fact until evidence turns up that disputes it. So far there isn't any.
What might be confusing some people is that they confuse the words theory and hypothesis and assume that a theory is just a popular hypothesis. A hypothesis is never taken as fact. Anything that is done relying on a hypothesis is always done keeping an eye on the rivals in case they explain the events better than the this one did.
The reason a hypothesis is not equal to a theory is because either a hypothesis hasn't got much evidence to support it or there are peices of evidence it can't quite explain away yet.
However evolution is not a hypothesis. Many creationists argue against it as if it was and this is a fundemental mistake. There aren't many biologists who don't treat evolution as a fact. There aren't any who can provide as much supporting evidence for an alternative explaination.
Where is the faith in that?
Originally posted by Omniscaper
My main point was to keep an open mind because neither concepts can present conclusive scientific evidence. To suggest that there is no such thing as scientific fact anymore is just relativism BULL.
Again with the misunderstanding of what science is. Sorry to say it again but there is no such thing as a scientific fact. There never was and there never can be. All science can do is prove that certain things are or aren't true under certain conditions. Those are the limits imposed by what science fundementally is.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
From MY perspective:
There is still not enough hard evidence to move evolution from the back of my mind to the front. There is still no evidence of transitional missing links
I'm sorry but what the hell do you think Archaeopteryx is then? :confused:
In fact why don't you take a look at this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) rather than quoting from the creationist playbook.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
or observable chains of favorable genetic mutations.
What do you want? Someone to duplicate several hundred thousand years worth of evolution under laboratory conditions? Not going to happen.
However in bacteria and viri which do breed astonishingly quickly it can be proved under those conditions.
An example of a real life situation was posted a while back where small mouthed toads where suddenly doing better because they weren't eating a poisonous food source.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
The mathematical probablilities behind the random formation of the first (supposedly simple, lol) single celled organism requires much MUCH more time than what Einstein's general relativity theory, which suggests a begining of space-time, would allow.
Of course it does. Same way that the chance of sand on a beach randomly making a pentium chip is similarly improbable. Your two basic mistakes are in the assumption that a simple single celled organism needs to arise all at once and that evolution is random. Evolution is absolutely not random. Mutation is random. Natural selection is anything but.
The first cells would not have been anywhere near as complex as even the single celled organisms present today.
The fact that RNA is a liquid crystal under the right conditions should speak volumes to you about the lack of a need for phospholipids in the first cells for instance.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
There are also many other reasons that I do not blindly accept evolution as cold hard fact. It being from improbable constant formation of favorable amino acid chirality to environmental inhospitablility to random DNA development.
Very few biologists believe that DNA or even RNA was replictor. It's pretty obvious that replicator was a much more simple compound and might even have been inorganic (read up on Cairn-Smith's inorganic clays theory if you're interested). It also has an interesting explaination for the chirality of biological molecules built in IIRC.
-
I'm thinking that the best way of teaching religions' views on the issue in a science class would be to group them all according to general theory and list some supporting and unsupporting evidence.
Or just simply tell people 'this is the scientific community's explanation for life. This is not necessarily you or your parents' viewpoints. If you want to know more about religious theories, go check out a book from the school library or take a class on religion.'
However, I doubt that'd fly with many of the people against teaching evolution...
Although I can sort of sympathize with them. If someone told me I had to teach straight creationism as fact, I'd at the very least protest, assuming that wouldn't get my head lopped off or something.
Edit: This was in response to aldo's post.
-
My, what a mighty high horse you got there Karajorma. Not once did I say science, ingeneral, is faith based. "Evolution is how life began" is a faith based statement. I guess in reality, unless we are the ones doing the research or analysis, we are all putting our faith on someone elses conclusions.
I think creationists are more focused on HOW science is being taught moreso than what science is teaching.
I think what people need to learn most is diplomacy and apologetics.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Both Inteligent design and Evolution concepts were created from an observation of EVIDENCE from different sources.
You can claim that but the fact is that your so called evidence for intelligent design wasn't collected according to the scientific method and therefore has no place whatsoever in a science class.
In fact it's the very antithesis of the scientific method because it is espousing a more complex solution than is needed. Evolution may seem hideously complicated in comparison to intelligent design but there is one rather major sticking point with the latter. For intelligent design to be considered scientific it would have to explain God. And that can't be done, so Occam's Razor cuts the whole thing to bits.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
My, what a mighty high horse you got there Karajorma. Not once did I say science, ingeneral, is faith based. "Evolution is how life began" is a faith based statement.
And you're wrong again. Where is the faith. Look at my explaination of what science is and explain to me where is the leap of faith. Cause I really don't see how it is anything but the appliction of Occam's Razor to the evidence.
As foir high horses you're the one who is telling me that the way I see the world is wrong when you say it's faith not science. Pretty high handed yourself.
-
"what the hell do you think Archaeopteryx"
he probly thinks its a hoax, and he probly also thinks it was the only trasitional fossil ever found.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"what the hell do you think Archaeopteryx"
he probly thinks its a hoax, and he probly also thinks it was the only trasitional fossil ever found.
Which is why I linked to a page full of the buggers :D
-
I got myself stuck in a Catholic highschool somehow, and I can say it's pretty nice. We spent a little bit of time on creation, then later moved on to why Jesus was born in spring in a cave and not in the fairy tale stable. In Biology we had an entire chapter devoted to Darwinism. There was no whining or *****ing about how it was wrong or whatnot. You don't have to believe it, but it's still gonna be on the test (same with the Theology class...there are several Muslims in our school taking Catholic Theology).
-
I'm sorry, "evidence" is not exclusive to scientific method. How do you do u suppose things were considered "evidence" before scientific method was even established.
Before the "Enlightenment" period and Darwin, the sciences were open to both natural and un-natural possibilities. The universe and human existance go way beyond human logic and reason.
-
well you can't very well put a hypothosys backed by non-scientific evedence into a science class.... right?
-
Well that is exactly whats happening with the way many skools teach Darwinism. Evolution has shapeshifted so much since Darwin that the chain of reasonings that stemed from it, are no longer interlinked.
-
Originally posted by Solatar
I got myself stuck in a Catholic highschool somehow, and I can say it's pretty nice. We spent a little bit of time on creation, then later moved on to why Jesus was born in spring in a cave and not in the fairy tale stable. In Biology we had an entire chapter devoted to Darwinism. There was no whining or *****ing about how it was wrong or whatnot. You don't have to believe it, but it's still gonna be on the test (same with the Theology class...there are several Muslims in our school taking Catholic Theology).
I had a similar experience :nod:
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Well that is exactly whats happening with the way many skools teach Darwinism.
elaborate
-
The Enlightenment and Darwinism have nothing at all to do with each other. Without the Enlightenment and the development of the Scientific Method, you'd be sitting there with your oil lantern, not sitting at your computer.
-
That's a rather ridiculous argument. The scientific method is here now and science should stick to it. If it doesn't how the f**k is it science?
You might as well call for a return to using divination because that was used before science too.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Well that is exactly whats happening with the way many skools teach Darwinism. Evolution has shapeshifted so much since Darwin that the chain of reasonings that stemed from it, are no longer interlinked.
Absolute nonsense. Post the details of a broken link.
-
I'm not here to change minds. I'm just presenting my perspective and opinion on the matter. Am I essentially calling people stupid for not sharing my perspective, no. That is what I'm sensing from many of of the posts here.
My concern is with the sciences not putting all the cards on the table (problems and holes in their theories). My concern is the spin being put on theories that are NOT airtight.
-
[edit]posting too fast..
ok, so your problem is that there not teaching anti-science in science class?
-
Anti-science!? Science is an ever changing arena. The science of the past is not the same as the science of today. To suggest that a theory is not perfect and to present a theory's unanswered questions I do not consider anti-science. I see as responsible science. To present problems with a particular theory will only point the next generation to tackle them.
Perhaps "fact" is bad wording on my part. "Truth" I think is the better terminology. Darwinistic evolution has not yet reached a level that is beyond refutal and question.
-
science is the deductive process of takeing what you observe and trying to determine the most likely cause for it, and then testing your determineation.
how would someone have come up with "god made the earth in seven days" from anything observable today?
-
Darwin's theory of natural selection hasn't fundamentally changed, nor is it a simple theory; in fact, natural selection has been directly observed. Here's a classic textbook example: peppered moths live in forests in certain parts of England. They come in two varieties: light-colored and dark-colored. Prior to the early 1800s, the light-colored moths, which blended in well with the color of the tree bark, were present in much higher numbers than the dark-colored moths, which showed up easily against the bark and were eaten by predators. Then came the Industrial Revolution; factories were built and started putting out large quantities of smoke and soot. As a result, the bark of the trees darkened. The moth population started to shift; light-colored moths were now easily visible and frequently preyed upon, while the dark-colored moths blended in with the trees. What had formerly been a hindrance for the dark moths was now an adaptation. Over the last few decades, with the implementation of stricter pollution controls, the trees have become lighter, and the moth population has reversed once again. Natural selection is as simple as that; the organisms best adapted to their environment survive more frequently and are able to pass their genes on to their offspring.
For another example, consider the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which has been plaguing medicine recently. The few bacteria with mutations that allow them to survive the antibiotic survive it and reproduce; the resulting generations are then all antibiotic-resistant. If you want the most fundamental example of all, just look at the original: Darwin's finches on Galapagos. Each species has a unique beak design specifically adapted for the food source in their own habitat. You may think that macroevolution is questionable, but natural selection is an observable fact that can't be realistically misrepresented. As was posted before, the fossil record also shows evidence for diversification and speciation; while we may be unsure about the specifics, such as whether evolution occurs gradually over time or in fits and starts, the scientific theory itself is sound and is supported by a great deal of evidence.
As a side note, I also went to Catholic grade school and high school, and evolution was a core feature of every biology class I took. Yes, we had theology classes that taught Catholic doctrine and beliefs, but we also had the same science courses that most of the rest of the world uses. You see, it can be done. :p
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Darwin's theory of natural selection hasn't fundamentally changed, nor is it a simple theory; in fact, natural selection has been directly observed. Here's a classic textbook example: peppered moths live in forests in certain parts of England. They come in two varieties: light-colored and dark-colored. Prior to the early 1800s, the light-colored moths, which blended in well with the color of the tree bark, were present in much higher numbers than the dark-colored moths, which showed up easily against the bark and were eaten by predators. Then came the Industrial Revolution; factories were built and started putting out large quantities of smoke and soot. As a result, the bark of the trees darkened. The moth population started to shift; light-colored moths were now easily visible and frequently preyed upon, while the dark-colored moths blended in with the trees. What had formerly been a hindrance for the dark moths was now an adaptation. Over the last few decades, with the implementation of stricter pollution controls, the trees have become lighter, and the moth population has reversed once again. Natural selection is as simple as that; the organisms best adapted to their environment survive more frequently and are able to pass their genes on to their offspring.
That is an example of MICRO-evolution. I have no beef with that proven theory. But to take that as a basis for macro-evolution and interspecies crossovers.... its quite a stretch.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I'm not here to change minds. I'm just presenting my perspective and opinion on the matter. Am I essentially calling people stupid for not sharing my perspective, no. That is what I'm sensing from many of of the posts here.
My concern is with the sciences not putting all the cards on the table (problems and holes in their theories). My concern is the spin being put on theories that are NOT airtight.
Yet another assertion. This is getting ridiculous. Every scientific theory has holes. The fact we haven't found the graviton is an enormous f**king hole in the theory of gravity yet I don't hear any of this nonsense about people believing in gravity as a matter of faith.
The fact is you're giving a very good example of what Intelligent Design is. A series of easily disprovable assertions. You claim you have evidence but when challenged to provide it you post the equivalent of "Look behind you! A three headed monkey!" and simply move on to your next assertion.
I don't think you're stupid because you believe in God. You can believe in creationism all you like too.
What I take exception to is the fact that you obviously don't understand what science is and yet dare to say that a whole branch of it is an article of faith and then fail to provide a single shread of evidence for why that is true.
There is no spin being put on evolution. Read my explaination of what science is again. Evolution is the best scientific theory that explains life on Earth. So it must be accepted by science (minor) holes and all.
To do anything else is the antithesis of science.
-
I'm still waiting for an explaination of how the evedence behind evolution is non-scientific.
or better yet, how the evedence behind creationism is.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
That is an example of MICRO-evolution. I have no beef with that proven theory. But to take that as a basis for macro-evolution and interspecies crossovers.... its quite a stretch.
ok, so you can accept that a population can change to suit there envoronment, changes wich corispond to a genetic level alteration of the population. why is it then that you cannot accept that if a population is seperated into two or more groupes and placed in diferent environments for long enough that the cumulated diferences between the two populations would make them incapable of successfuly reproduceing when the two populations are once again occupying the same environment?
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
That is an example of MICRO-evolution. I have no beef with that proven theory. But to take that as a basis for macro-evolution and interspecies crossovers.... its quite a stretch.
Points at the ridiculous number of Galapogos finches who only differ in colour and shape of beak.
Are you honestly denying that the same forces that changed the colour of a species in under 100 years couldn't change the beaks and plumage of those animals in 10,000 times as much time?
Before you answer look at what has happened to the wolf since it's domestication in 1/100th of that time
-
Thats all well and good Karajorma, but its still no evidence for trans-species evolution.
Once again, I'm not here change minds. I am not here to convert people into Christianity. Not once did I mention the Christian God nor did I suggest Creationism is absolute truth.
So many words are being put in my mouth, you're right Karajorma when u said that "... this IS rediculous".
I don't have the time and patience (yet) to convince people to see the universe in a particular light. I do not have all the answers to questions posed on Intelligent Design concepts. I've done enough cross referencing and research on the matter and I know enough for myself to continue leaning on that concept.
All I want is that people should have an open mind and consider all possibilities. People should always question their faith in either the scienctific and/or spiritual truthes.
-
the point of this conversation is that creationism is not science,
and that evolution is.
provide scientific evidence for creationism or forfit.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I'm thinking that the best way of teaching religions' views on the issue in a science class would be to group them all according to general theory and list some supporting and unsupporting evidence.
Or just simply tell people 'this is the scientific community's explanation for life. This is not necessarily you or your parents' viewpoints. If you want to know more about religious theories, go check out a book from the school library or take a class on religion.'
However, I doubt that'd fly with many of the people against teaching evolution...
I don't see how evolution and creationism can be taught side-by-side in a public school when religions have different stories of creation. To do this, you'd have to address these, and I don't think anyone wants to take the time to explain a couple dozen religion's versions of creation. You can't just put a Christian-centric spin on it. There are other religions out there.
They will never put religion back into public school. It's separation of church and state. Hey, remember they removed "under God" from the pledge of allegiance here in the States? Although, that is a bit more trivial than this. Public education needs reform though.
-
They actually failed. The guy who tried doing it didn't have legal custody of his daughter.
-
no no don't you give him a chance to dodge.
he has to provide scientific evedence suporting creationism.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the point of this conversation is that creationism is not science,
and that evolution is.
provide scientific evidence for creationism or forfit.
The point of my MY posts does not fit into the parameters you ultimately deemed this thread.
Evolution (all life came from a single celled organism)... too many other considerations that are keeping me from accepting it as absolute truth:
1. The Big Bang... (problem for causality)
2. Law of Thermodynamics "entropy" linked with mathematical improbablity within a given timeframe since BigBang, and specific dynamic relationships between cosmic bodies and terrestrial environmentals to allow for the random convergance of the first protien.
3. The complexity of DNA structure does not allow for inter/trans species evolution and denotes that form follows function.
4. Human awareness of the patterns of all these universal systems.
Forfit...unlikely. Dodge... why? Sleep.... yes.
-
I'm sorry, "evidence" is not exclusive to scientific method. How do you do u suppose things were considered "evidence" before scientific method was even established.
The scientific method was never invented. It is the natural process by which we analyze cause/effect relationships to determine what we can consider true. Ug the Caveman practiced the scientific method, he just didn't have a name for it.
Before the "Enlightenment" period and Darwin, the sciences were open to both natural and un-natural possibilities. The universe and human existance go way beyond human logic and reason.
There is no such thing as "unnatural". If the universe's laws permit something to happen, it is natural. "Unnatural" and "supernatural" are operative terms we apply when we lack the knowledge to understand logically why something is occurring. We fill the gap with our imagination, a biological side-effect of our evolution. Sometimes our imagination conveniently interacts with our logical side, tempting us to the conclusion that real truth lies in intuition, but this is a fallacy that results from our total inability to see the universe beyond our own, inconsequential emotions.
-
creation or "intelligent design" is the laziest damn myth ive heard of. it exists because people just can;t grasp the concept of how long a million years is, and they don't want to stretch their mind out enough to grasp it properly, or at least to acknowledge that it exists and they can't grasp it
-
1) irrelevent, were talking biology here, you want to say god made the universe, fine, I don't care at this point, we're talking biology and were stiking to it.
2) Law of Thermodynamics relates to the number of posable configurations of a closed system, it says nothing of 'order', therefore is irrelevent to weather something could or could not be formed. but even if it were earth is not a closed system a requierment of this theory.
3)what exactly do you mean by inter/trans species? genes from one animal do not move from it to another (with the obvius exeption of reproduction). or do you mean that there is something about DNA that would make it incapable of haveing one species become two, in wich case what exactly is it about the structure of DNA that allows for the exsistance of diferent species but does not allow one species to become another.
elaborate.
4)how does us being aware of stuff effect anything?
sleep, on this we can agree.
-
I think Intelligent Design is the zenith of human awareness. It acknowledges that we do not control the universe and are merely manipulating the pre-established laws of physics. To know how something works is one thing. To understand why it works is quite another.
Sleep... zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
-
But what makes you think there is a why? Why isn't it logical to assume that the universe just is, with no reason at all?
-
DNA copies incorrectly a certain percentage of the time, sometimes due to damage. This causes mutations. These mutations lead to new traits. At this point, one of three things.
A trait that proves to be favorable will often be passed along to offspring, where it may combine with other new traits. A sufficient number of new traits can cause the organism to no longer be fertile with the progenitor species. This is called differentiation.
A trait that has no value, either favorably or negatively, may be passed on. This may also contribute to differentiation.
A trait that has a negative value will likely cause the organism to die, preventing the trait from being passed on. This would be an evolutionary dead end.
That is the Theory of Evolution in a nutshell.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But what makes you think there is a why? Why isn't it logical to assume that the universe just is, with no reason at all?
Same reason why can't science accept "it just IS" explanations?
-
Yes, but science doesn't include "why", either. It only includes "how". The entire concept of "why" is an emotional question. The pieces we are missing about the way the universe works are questions of cause and effect, not of intent.
-
"Why" is a valid question to ask because we have the mental capacity to. I doubt science wouldn't be where it is if it was for the "why" factor of our curiosity.
Its becomes an important philosophical issue to tackle the causality behind the universal beginnings of existance.
I'm an artist. I see things a certain way that keeps me questioning reality. The more questions I ask, the more it leads me to conclude that there is a universal artist at work. Why am I deeply moved by the sight of a colorfull sunset? What is it about our perception of beauty that moves our soul. In the end, it is the abstract thoughts that are the driving forces behind my technical skills when I paint. Abstract thought and emotions is an important part of human existance, but I also acknowledge that its not the only important piece of our psyche.
I believe "Q" put best when he said, "Its not about mapping stars and charting nebulae. Its about charting the unknown possibilities of existence."
-
"Why" is a question for philosophers. "How" is a question for scientists. Do not confuse the two.
-
As a vocation, I absolutely agree with you. But why ignore an imporant part of our operating system? I believe humanity in general should always have these questions balanced in our minds before we go to bed each night. :)
-
I'm a writer and a musician. I know exactly what you're talking about when you refer to the artistic impulse. I am not debating the effect that our emotions have on us. I am saying that the only thing upon which our emotions have any bearing is us. I am asserting that just because we experience beauty does not mean beauty actually exists in an absolute sense. Our emotions will never stop influencing us but they have no effect on the way the universe as a whole operates. I wouldn't trade my poetic muse for anything but I don't think for a second that the cosmos produces things for me to write about.
-
Why seperate ourselves from the universe? We are made of the same particles that make up the universe. That makes that part of our preceptions important to very essence of our being. We're no Vulcans :)
-
At the same time, we must recognize that even though we're part of the universe, the universe is far too vast for us to comprehend. All we can do is hope to slowly learn the mechanics, and wonder at the cause for these mechanics.
-
Why seperate ourselves from the universe? We are made of the same particles that make up the universe. That makes that part of our preceptions important to very essence of our being.
Only in an emotional way. All the emotions we experience, including the ones applicable to artistic reverence, are no more than chemical reactions. The very essence of our being is just what you said: particles. Because we experience emotions we can't help but want them to be significant, but they are only significant to us, because we are the only ones experiencing them. We are simply lumps of matter with the ability to process information.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The very essence of our being is just what you said: particles. Because we experience emotions we can't help but want them to be significant, but they are only significant to us,
In fact, to make this more relevant; Your emotions are insignificant to me. So why would they be significant in a larger scale? :p
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Only in an emotional way. All the emotions we experience, including the ones applicable to artistic reverence, are no more than chemical reactions. The very essence of our being is just what you said: particles. Because we experience emotions we can't help but want them to be significant, but they are only significant to us, because we are the only ones experiencing them. We are simply lumps of matter with the ability to process information.
Keep in mind, though we are made of "star stuff" we have the capacity to process information in unique way. Information is being processed through the human experience. If an archeologists a hundred years from now finds our remains, will studying our molecular remains tell him/her the whole story of us? They will find my paintings, or your music and something abstract is emotionally communicated which will "paint" a better picture of the life that was ours. But of course that is still not the whole story.
Its like a data disc. Its made of plastics and metals , or etc. But its the information its carrying thats important. My perception of the universe focuses on that "information" and how it gets translated.
-
Jeez; this is getting way too nihilistic for me. :p The fact that emotional states are caused by chemicals in the human body doesn't necessarily equate to the conclusion that that's all they really are. I, for one, believe that there is something more to humans, something beyond a simple group of particles chemically bonded and acting as a biological CPU. I certainly consider myself to be much greater than a sum of simple carbon compounds. Call it a soul, call it an essence, call it whatever, but I think it's there. It's not something anyone can ever prove, so it's decidedly outside the realm of science, but I think that considering it is every bit as important as scientific experimentation. Even though I consider myself to be a scientist, I don't close myself off to ideas that can't be proven. I think that's the general message that Omniscaper was trying to convey.
-
Finally!!! Thank you Mongoose. NOW I can sleep.
-
Omni: Dude, the laws of physics don't have feelings. You're mixing up scientists and anthropologists.
-
I understand what you're getting at; I just don't buy it. (Yes, that means that we're all just beating a dead horse, but isn't that what makes art and philosophy wonderful?)
Personally, I find existential emptiness to be a beautiful thing. I maintain a sort of sadomasochistic relationship with the universe; the totally absurd meaninglessness of all things is, to me, frightening, bittersweet, beautiful, hilarious, and altogether intoxicating. I want to run and hide but I can't look away. That's where much of my writing comes from-- not from the belief in order or intent, but the insanity of being a slave to my own irrational need for meaning that does not exist.
-
That's so totally emo :)
-
Originally posted by YodaSean
That's so totally emo :)
Nah, there wasn't enough black makeup or "you don't understand me, no one understands me, except my imaginary friends" bit.
-
It's probably more along the lines of so totally deconstructionist or so totally naturalistic.
-
It's funny; I find that same sort of beauty in the feeling that we're all here for a purpose, and that there is something greater than ourselves. I guess that qualifies as more dead horse beating, but as they say, different strokes for different folks. :)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Omni: Dude, the laws of physics don't have feelings. You're mixing up scientists and anthropologists.
Hey, us anthropologists are scientists too! :p
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Personally, I find existential emptiness to be a beautiful thing. I maintain a sort of sadomasochistic relationship with the universe; the totally absurd meaninglessness of all things is, to me, frightening, bittersweet, beautiful, hilarious, and altogether intoxicating. I want to run and hide but I can't look away. That's where much of my writing comes from-- not from the belief in order or intent, but the insanity of being a slave to my own irrational need for meaning that does not exist.
You know, it would be a terrible thing if the universe actually did have meaning and all of the bad things that happen to people happened becaused they actually deserved it.
So, looking at it that way, I'm glad about the randomness, senselessness, and brutality of the universe. It'd just be too nasty of a place to live in otherwise. :lol:
-
We may be all here for a purpose, but do we all realize what our purpose is?
-
If we don't realize it then we might as well not have one.
Anyway, all this "purpose"/"meaning" pseudo-philosophical BS has nothing to do with whether ID belongs in schools.
-
No, it doesn't, but you know how thread subjects change. :p
-
hi guys, these arguments sound _so_ familiar... it's like being home...
anyway, i reckon evolution should be taught in schools under _science_ and creationism and all that under _religious studies_ because that's what they are. science and religion aren't in the same category because they look at explaining different things. science explains the way things are, and religion explains why they are. neither may succeed fully, but that's the aim, isn't it? someone correct me.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Anyway, all this "purpose"/"meaning" pseudo-philosophical BS has nothing to do with whether ID belongs in schools.
This line reminds me of a statement I wanted to make earlier. Recently, on another forum I frequent, there was a rather long discussion on the topic of intelligent design. One of the end results of that discussion was the fact that the study of intelligent design does not automatically equate to creationism; in fact, intelligent design need not have anything to do with the beginnings of the universe. Contrary to popular usage and misconception, the concept of intelligent design is a lot simpler than that; it really involves the process of determining if something, pretty much anything, has some sort of guiding intelligence behind its creation. Let me use a real-world example, for instance. Say that a being from another planet were to travel to Egypt and observe the Sphinx. His first thought might be that this was just a natural rock formation, geologically upheaved and sculpted by erosion into a very unique shape. However, were he to examine it more closely, he might start to ponder the seemingly regular design and some of the other features; in time, he might come to the inclusion that the feature was a result of some sort of intelligent being's work. That, in a nutshell, exemplifies the general field of intelligent design.
Obviously, in the popular usage, intelligent design means something quite different. Many people see it as an attempt to put a "new face" on creationism for the purpose of undermining the teaching of evolution. A few of the people in this thread I'm referring to had done some reading into the origin of the idea of intelligent design, and they stated that, in some cases, people advocating intelligent design are really creationists. This by no means represents the whole field, though; there are others out there who seek to approach the issue in different ways; one example would be in determining the validity of the "Martian face." In a sense, I guess that I could be considered an advocate of intelligent design in some sense of the word, due to the fact that I look at observations of our universe and take from them the belief that there was some sort of higher power responsible, at a fundamental level, for the way in which it operates. At the same time, as I stated before, I'm also a supporter of the scientific theory of evolution. As I said, the two need not be mutually exclusive.
There's an immense amount more to the whole argument than what I wrote, and I'm not trying to defend anyone here; I'd just like to state the point. If anyone's interested in the discussion I mentioned, I'll post the link to it.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Thats all well and good Karajorma, but its still no evidence for trans-species evolution.
EDIT; heehee... I think I just mirrored exactly what kara said on the first page of this topic......
Um... what about the transition fossil forms between dinosaurs and birds (Archeopteryx is the obvious one, also composognathus and others)
Othniel Marsh also observed and documented fossil evidence for the evolution of the horse.
Going further back, there are further fossils of developing fish life, including fossils of fish which developed lungs and then limbs (Acanthostega, for example, was a Upper Devonian era fish with both lungs and gills).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html gives some further answers discussing the fossil record as it exists.
Obviously the natural incompleteness of the fossil record means it's never going to be easy (something like all the human population of earth would amount to maybe 10 or less fossils a few million years down the line), but it's wrong to suggest there have been no transitional fossils discovered.
A secondary point over your later mention of the law of thermodynamics; it's my understanding that a misquoted version of that law is a common feature in anti-evolution arguements. However, that arguement - that entropy leads to a disorganised and chaotic system of decay - only applies to closed systems. And our world / universe clearly isn't that.
Finally (because I can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread and picking up stuff to nitpick), there's not - or at least no longer - an assumption that DNA formed spontaneously; I believe one of the current theories being tested is that it effectively evolved in the prebiotic 'sea' of early earth, i.e. all these long molecular amino acid combinations didn't just emerge in their current form. (although there's not an assumption this was all totally random chance anyways; these things actually tend to 'crystallize' into long molecular chains anyways IIRC).
And, of course, the more likely scenario IIRC is that RNA formed as a precursor to DNA itself.
Of course, the exact conditions of the earth at that point are still being investiagated and discussed; some scientists thing it would take life about a billion years to arise, some believe it only took a few million but had to restart a few times due to meteoric imapct, etc, wiping it out.
An interesting consideration with regards to complexity in creation imply design is, though, that some things aren't well 'designed'. Panda thumbs, for example.
Anyways, point being I think you're discounting a lot of know facts & evidence in your conclusion. The 2nd law of thermodynamics-> entropy thing, if you're meaning it the way I think you are, is completely off base. And that does worry me a bit, because it's one thing to have legitimate concerns - evolutionary science is still being constantly researched and revised to keep updating the theory - it's another when those concerns aren't as factual as you think they are, because it points to deliberate misinformation somewhere along the line.
The other side of the coin is that these percieved holes in evolutionary theory are being constantly addressed and explored; i.e. part of the scientific process. It's not a case of anything deliberately contradictory being dismissed as is sometimes implied.
Ultimately, for creationism - or any other theory - to provided as a serious alternative to evolution, it has to be both defined and supported with evidence that proves /goes towards proving it rather than seeks to discredit the accepted theory.
I don't believe I've seen either the detailed theory or provative evidence of creationism.
-
The 2nd law thing together with that comment about there being no transitional forms are clear example of what I meant when I said that Omniscaper was simply listing stuff from the creationist handbook on denying evolution.
The fact that you've quoted it Omni obviously proves that you don't actually understand how the 2nd law works. So quite why you think you can use it as an argument when you don't actually understand it.
The 2nd law thing for instance has been debunked so many times it's not funny yet every time this debate comes up someone presents it as if it was actually a valid argument.
So if any of the intelligent design proponents want to continue the argument I suggest they read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html) and refrain from simply spouting the same old arguments again and again (at least come up with something new if you have to argue!)
-
I wasn't even trying to argue dude. Nor was I trying to convince people that evolution is absolutely impossible. My stating my position on the matter is not a personal attack on anyone's BELIEF system.
Some of you folks (like Karajorma) need to chill out and get off that superiority complex and try to speak in a less condescending manner to anyone who does not deem evolution as an absolute truth. Ever heard the phrase, "you can attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar"? I'm open minded enough to look past your posturing and look into the info sources you've suggested. (Karajorma, I came across some of your Anti-Creationism stategies sources)
Knowledge should not be used as a platform for superiority over people. Keep in mind, everything that you know is nothing that wasn't given to you and personally accepted.
I reitterate my position on evolution in skools:
Schools should teach it in the sciences as THEORY in origin science. One that not ALL scientists accept. The theory should be objectively presented with the current issues and facts "for" and "against" it.
To teach the theory with a factual, irrefutable spin is irresponsible to the both sciences as well as the age old problem of the "human condition". Science has an ever changing face, with theories that are constantly being debunked and reinforced.
-
The problem is, Omni, what your citing as evidence for it being wrong isn't actually evidence.
Sometimes, there isn't a valid 'against' evidence to contest on scientific grounds, and certainly not one proportional to the 'for' evidence. The reason evolution is taught as fact is simply because it is the only existing theory with a massive weight of evidence behind.
There is no alternative thoery formed on a scientific basis; the only alternatives are supported by religious texts. And that isn't an issue of science, it's an issue of religion; hence should be in RE.
Until someone formulates an alternate theory to 'replace' evolution with the same weight of evidence behind it, there is no alternative explanation to be taught.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I wasn't even trying to argue dude. Nor was I trying to convince people that evolution is absolutely impossible. My stating my position on the matter is not a personal attack on anyone's BELIEF system.
Some of you folks (like Karajorma) need to chill out and get off that superiority complex and try to speak in a less condescending manner to anyone who does not deem evolution as an absolute truth.
I'm acting superior? You f**king started it by presuming to tell me and every atheist on the board that we have faith in something. I certainly don't. I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is the scientific explaination for life on Earth I don't believe in it any more than I believe in trees, ants or buses. I have NO faith at all and I consider it the height of presumption for you to sit there and tell me that I do.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Ever heard the phrase, "you can attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar"? I'm open minded enough to look past your posturing and look into the info sources you've suggested. (Karajorma, I came across some of your Anti-Creationism stategies sources)
Knowledge should not be used as a platform for superiority over people. Keep in mind, everything that you know is nothing that wasn't given to you and personally accepted.
If you don't know the answer to something then ask don't claim you know the answer when you don't. That's pretty arrogant too. You're basically saying "I know very little about this subject but I believe this so therefore the people who've spent years working on this very topic must be wrong. I have no proof that they're wrong but just cause I believe it they must be".
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I reitterate my position on evolution in skools:
Schools should teach it in the sciences as THEORY in origin science. One that not ALL scientists accept. The theory should be objectively presented with the current issues and facts "for" and "against" it.
To teach the theory with a factual, irrefutable spin is irresponsible to the both sciences as well as the age old problem of the "human condition". Science has an ever changing face, with theories that are constantly being debunked and reinforced.
Science should always be taught as not being irrefutable. Have I ever said that evolution should be taught as irrefutable? However intelligent design has no place in science class.
Science classes are there to teach science. Teaching ID in science makes as much sense as teaching home economics in the middle of an english class.
BTW if you're not arguing why the hell are you restating an opinion we all already knew you held?
-
Wow
-
Post count +1 eh Omni?
-
You guys better settle down or you know an admin is going to come along and close this thread as well like the little debate on abortion.
-
you guys really don't know when to quit don't you..