Evolution vs. Creationism

^ Nah, it wasn't like that at all.

The evolution of sex is definitely complex. As far as I know, scientists are still unsure as to how it involved although there are a few theories. Sex does promote greater genetic diversity, but I have a feeling that isn't what actually caused sex to occur... that is just what keeps it around.

Edited by Kestrel - December 04 2009 at 21:51

Dean wrote: I think most of us know the rudiments of the origins of the Universe and Live on Earth from a Creationist and Evolutionist point of view, but does anyone know the Intelligent Design version?

ID is kind of nebulous.

Essentially, ID basically holds that some features of life are too complex to have evolved. Thus, an intelligent designer created that feature. (I'm sure you know this but I was just introducing the concept.)

While ID as a philosophy is a form of creationism, ID as a movement is disguised Christian Creationism. The Discovery Institute, the think tank behind ID, wants to use ID as a "wedge" to introduce Christian Creationism into the science classroom. There are several evidences for this: 1) The "wedge" document was leaked and 2) A textbook the Discovery Institute pushed, Of Pandas and People, was originally a creationist textbook but they replaced every instance of "creationism" with "intelligent design" after the US Supreme Court declared creationism in the classroom was unconstitutional.

ID is nebulous in the sense that creationism is: everyone has their own beliefs.

For instance, Michael Behe, a biochemist and associate of the Discovery Institute, pretty much agrees with modern evolutionary thinking with the exception of some features he feels are too complex and he calls these irreducibly complex. By that, he means that if you have some complex feature and you remove a part of that feature and it no longer functions, it could not have evolved. (His argument doesn't work at all, but whatever.)

As far as I have seen, intelligent design concerns itself primarily with evolution. When it comes to cosmology, ID proponents sometimes utilize the fine-tuned universe arguments and also claim that life violates entropy. So from that, it seems they attack cosmology as an indirect way to attack evolution.

Basically, intelligent design as a movement is a total lie and a joke. Excuse the strong language, but it really is. Creationism is one thing, but trying to disguise your agenda and blatantly lie to people is another.

I just briefly went through the wiki article on intelligent design and it is very detailed, well sourced, and is completely accurate with what I know of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


Edited by Kestrel - December 05 2009 at 03:58

Epignosis wrote: Doesn't agree with Mike = immune to reason

Refuses to look at evidence = immune to reason

That's what I was saying.

^ the pattern I see here though - not just in Rob - is that evidence supporting evolution is presented and the reaction is "oh, another Dawkins video - you really are a Dawkins freak". How about some comment on the topics that are presented in the videos?

If someone is not convinced that evolution by natural selection could have produced us and all the other forms of life on this planet, These Dawkins videos and books are simply the best way that I know to learn about why people like myself are convinced of it. They are detailed, they are flawlessly presented (better than I could ever present the evidence).

If, in that situation, people refuse to watch them or comment on superficialities rather than the actual evidence, then that is what I call "immune to reason" or "refusing to look at the evidence".

I'll gladly look at any evidence presented that falsifies evolution ... so far, none has been found.

^ he is passionate about his cause, and he shows little respect for religion. And I absolutely agree with that approach. AC Grayling might seem a little bit more "friendly" considering the general tone, but he attacks religious beliefs as much as Dawkins does.

Still, all that has little to do with the evidence for evolution, and whether you accept it or not. The underlying problem I guess is that evolution really, in essence, negates any belief based on the Bible, which - unfortunately - offers explanations about how the world - including ourselves - was created which hugely contradict evolution. Any good Christian must reject evolution, yet there is compelling evidence for it. IMO it is this simple fact which makes many people uncomfortable when they're asked to look at the evidence, or to watch Dawkins, who is, essentially, telling them that they are delusional (which I again completely agree with).

EDIT: Have a look at this video, if you're interested:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2007/wed-be-better-off-without-religion

It features Grayling, Hitchens and Dawkins on the side of "We'd be better off without religion", and it's a good opportunity to compare those three (and their opponents).


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 05 2009 at 05:45

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God because it is only concerned with the material world we can see. I accept Evolution as fact and believe it is God’s way of getting things done. Mr ProgFreak is no better than a young earth creationist if he can’t accept the fact that religious belief and atheism are both valid belief systems.  

We cannot base our religious or non-religious beliefs relying only on science. Evolution is a fact and we bring our preexisting beliefs and views to that fact and that is what makes us reject evolution because we believe it disproves God or reject God because we believe it’s disproves him. Evolution taken on its own says nothing about the existence of God. I believe that science and religion complement each other and are not mutually exclusive. Science answers our questions about the natural world and how it works while religion answers the questions that science were never meant to address such as ‘why we are here’ and ‘Is there life after death’.  I recommend reading Francis Collins ‘The Language of God’ as he is a scientist who sees no conflict between science and religion and criticizes creationism and fundamental atheists like Richard Dawkins. 

Adams Bolero wrote: Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God because it is only concerned with the material world we can see. I accept Evolution as fact and believe it is God’s way of getting things done. Mr ProgFreak is no better than a young earth creationist if he can’t accept the fact that religious belief and atheism are both valid belief systems.

They are mutually exclusive ... so even if atheism was a belief system (which it is not, but just for the sake of argument), they couldn't both be right.

BTW: I respect anyone's opinion, but I will also mention flaws in those opinions when I see them. That's what discussions are all about.

Adams Bolero wrote: We cannot base our religious or non-religious beliefs relying only on science. Evolution is a fact and we bring our preexisting beliefs and views to that fact and that is what makes us reject evolution because we believe it disproves God or reject God because we believe it’s disproves him. Evolution taken on its own says nothing about the existence of God. I believe that science and religion complement each other and are not mutually exclusive. Science answers our questions about the natural world and how it works while religion answers the questions that science were never meant to address such as ‘why we are here’ and ‘Is there life after death’.  I recommend reading Francis Collins ‘The Language of God’ as he is a scientist who sees no conflict between science and religion and criticizes creationism and fundamental atheists like Richard Dawkins.

I know that book, but I've also seen various comments on it by not only Dawkins but also other scientists, and I'm afraid that I agree with them that his conclusion is flawed.

And about "fundamentalist atheism": There is no such thing - in all due respect, I think you confuse outspokenness with fundamentalism.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote:   I think there are many posts in which several of us are answering the question that Dawkins made in his videos, most of the answers comes from his wonders about religion... so, I don't think that we are not refussing the information... just have a different point of view about it... that's at least what I've been trying to do here... But you always want to we refer something else that the Bible, which you disscount right from the start... so, how is that? you call that everyone refuse your "proofs" but claim that the bible cannot be used as a starting point for creationist...??? Please, tell me why should take the Bible as an authority, as evidence? Why do you ask of me that instead of insisting on evidence, I should be satisfied with quotes from the Bible.

^ Again, you are calling ignorance to what YOU do not want to understand... It wasn't better to write "I simple prefer scientifi resear over dogmatic believes..."?? but again... you show that you like to be a Throll...  I'm hungry... I will be back soon...