Intellegent Design?

[Oversoul]

What I said...

Gravity may not be understood very well, but it has been demonstrated countless times.

How does that fit with...

You say gravity is understood and yet fundamentally it isnt because there's two competing theories that explain part of it but cannot both be true (thats the whole search for a 'Unified Field Theory' business you may have heard about).

Well?

In any case, gravity is better understood than evolution. Physicists are able to calculate how gravity will affect something. Gravity is not fully understood. There are competing theories. That should not be a problem. There have always been competing theories in science.

There are competing theories in evolution too. Experiments with fruit flies don't give us information as to how evolution really works. It has not been demonstrated that scientists can predict how evolution will affect something, as has been done with gravity. There are unanswered questions in evolutionary theory. And there are even competing theories involved in explaining certain details. I see a lot more uncertainty here than with gravity...

 

[Nightstalkers]

Genetic mutation and all that is also going to be taken into account... eh, I'd say that calculating this evolution stuff would be about as difficult to calculate as the exact outcomes of a hundred sided die roll.

In other words, it's about impossible seeing as you will always yield a general answer (for the die roll a number between 1 and 100)

I halfway believe in evolution because it's there and proven, but scientists do not have the exact understanding to go about making ridiculous claims.

 

[evan d]

In any case, gravity is better understood than evolution. Physicists are able to calculate how gravity will affect something. Gravity is not fully understood. There are competing theories. That should not be a problem. There have always been competing theories in science.

There are competing theories in evolution too. Experiments with fruit flies don't give us information as to how evolution really works. It has not been demonstrated that scientists can predict how evolution will affect something, as has been done with gravity. There are unanswered questions in evolutionary theory. And there are even competing theories involved in explaining certain details. I see a lot more uncertainty here than with gravity...

So you are saying that scientists can't predict how evolution could occur, Like all the fat people are more likely to die early, slowly weeding out the fat holding gene, until there is a shortage of food, when the fatties will live better?

 

[Oversoul]

So you are saying that scientists can't predict how evolution could occur, Like all the fat people are more likely to die early, slowly weeding out the fat holding gene, until there is a shortage of food, when the fatties will live better?

No, I am not saying that. And it's not as though there is a single "fat holding gene" at work. It's more complicated than that. Some people are fat and then lose weight. Some fat people live for a long time. Some people who weren't fat before get fat as they grow older. There are non-genetic factors involved. And if fat people die around, let's say 50 years of age, that still leaves them time to have children, who would continue to pass your "fat holding gene" on.

Aside from all this, weeding out fat people would be doing just that, reducing the number of fat people. There isn't any speciation there (which is what evolution is). We know very little about speciation, despite Gizmo's claims to the contrary. I'd call that a pretty big gap in our understanding of evolution.

 

[Gizmo]

Speciation is just evolution working on the same animal in different environments.

The relationship between evolution and speciation is the relationship between two diverging roads and the fork that creates them.

 

[DÛke]

Speaking of evolution, since I am still going to school, and will still be attending "higher education" for the next 2 years (Masters in Philosophy and in Psychology), I can say that even now, evolution is not taught as a fact, but as a theory that is not only changeable, but also deniable from certain perspectives (it fails to answer pressing questions)...

So what you or I think aside, the academic world does not teach evolution as a fact, not as it does with, say, the concept and reality of gravity. In fact, in every science class that I have had, speculative light was shed on the theory more so than that of worship.

It's small people with small minds, perhaps those who have lost touch with academia for several years now, that still cling to the theory as if it were the Second Coming.

 

[evan d]

Speaking of evolution, since I am still going to school, and will still be attending "higher education" for the next 2 years (Masters in Philosophy and in Psychology), I can say that even now, evolution is not taught as a fact, but as a theory that is not only changeable, but also deniable from certain perspectives (it fails to answer pressing questions)...

What questions does it fail to answer?

It not a theory on creating life, so it can't eb that question. Or other intelligent life. OR whether there is a God/Gods or not.

 

[Gizmo]

Anything we believe is only ever a theory, the simple truth is nothing we know can ever be considered a fact.

Thus the definition of a fact as being something that we are certain is true is irrelevent. A fact can be defined as something which we can reasonably expect within an extremely small margin of error to be true, with the caveat that at any later point it may be unproven.

 

[Mr_Pestilence]

Here's the problem:

Evolution is not a perfect theory, merely the best theory which explains most of the observable evidence.

"Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" is basically hearsay which has been passed from one generation to the next. As such, it wouldn't even be admissable in a court of law. If it were given standing to Evolution, then by extension, every crackpot theory regarding the origin of life should be taught as well.

Would Christians be happy with the Hindu theory of creation being taught? How about Wiccan? Zora-Astrian? Probably not. If Christians want their doctrine taught to their children, they should do so at home, not force government schools to teach it at taxpayer expense.

Incidentally, if you want an idea of how "life" could have come from "nothing", look up the Miller-Urey experiments conducted in the 1950's.

Better yet, forget school, educate yourself!

 

[EricBess]

Well, this thread certainly has degenerated. When last I posted, it was a good debate with reasonable arguments on both sides. I come back and find,

Evolution is as well-proven as gravity, and far better understood.

Religion is mankind's greatest sin and should be banned from formal education and treated as child abuse if the parents choose to brainwash their kids with that ****.

And

(Intolerance deleted)

While I don't know what Duke said, so I can't judge for myself whether it is intollerent, I can't help feel that we've had a lot of intollerence that certain people agree with that has been left in the thread....Just food for thought as I for one would be interested in knowing what it was that Duke said. From what I've seen, he's the most open-minded person around here that doesn't really seem to agree with either side.

And saying, "Religion is minkind's greatest sin..."...I'm I the only one that sees the irony in that?

Come on, people. Not one person arguing the existence of God in this thread has lifted a finger to attack those who don't

I would have made similiar statements, but I didn't out of respect.

I think my generation is far less religious, becuase we can see reality.

and yet I truely feel bad for the blindness that the arrogance of a generation that thinks they have the answers within themselves just because they see "religion" from the perspective of whatever church they once belonged to and don't agree with. Sure, there have been churches that used religion as an excuse for their dictatorships. But to make a blanket statement because of a few misguided and greedy individuals...

Anyway, my intent isn't to be inconsiderate here. I just find it interesting that whenever it comes to anything religious, the zealots against seem to speak in far more absolute terms about insisting their point.

Something to think about...

 

[EricBess]

I can see where people might be upset, but I agree that agnosticism isn't an argument for anything, but rather a non-argument used to not have to take a stance. I would say that there is nothing wrong with being agnostic if that's the way you want to be, but fact is, the fact that you would call yourself agnostic is evidence that the "question" interests you and therefore, you should take an interest in finding an answer.

It seems clear to me that no offence was meant by your words, but perhaps those that became upset did so because your words hit a bit too close to home

 

[Chaos Turtle]

This is a bit off-topic, but since the whole thread now seems to be, I figure it's okay if I chime in for a moment on the subject of agnosticism.

It's long been supposed by many (in fact I once felt the same way, when I was Christian) that the agnostic is something of a fence-sitter, one who can't or won't make a choice of whether to believe in God. There seems to be a presumption that the agnostic chooses the easy path by simply throwing up his hands and saying "I don't know."

Perhaps this is true for many. I can certainly understand why a person would want to avoid such a very tough question, and why that person might choose to call himself "agnostic." Unfortunately, as is often the case with such labels, they can not be universally and equally applied, leading some to conclude that all agnostics think alike.

While it may be true that many agnostics are actually just avoiding the question, many others - including myself - give the question a great deal of thought. It has been my efforts to answer the question that led me to believe that there is no one answer.

I see it like this:

This universe is vast, incomprehensively vast. The next-nearest star to us is about 4.3 light years away. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. The nearest galaxy to ours is 2,200,000 light years away. There are billions of galaxies.

On this one world alone, there is such a fantastic abundance and diversity of information (by "information" I mean "things that exist and can be experienced") that no one person can ever hope to experience it it all. How much information is there in our tiny solar system? our galaxy? the universe? other dimensions?

How can one even dream of comprehending the mind of a creator that is capable of producing such a volume of information? It seems to me that such a being is inherently unknowable in the human scope of knowing. We can only experience the infinitessimal fraction of it - this being and the universe, which I incidentally view as one and the same - that we come into contact with.

Thus, I am agnostic. Not because I don't know, but because I can't know.

If that seems indecisive or weak-willed to some, I can't help that. But I suggest that those who are so ready to affix such labels are not as open-minded as they believe they are.

Love and peace, y'all.

 

[Spiderman]

Trying to decide if something is "insulting" is really subjective and really becomes generally accepted as such if the majority views it as insulting. So far we have Isty and TomB viewing DUke's statement as insulting (if that was what he indeed posted). Did anyone else? EricBess, Chaos Turtle, Mr. P (not clear if Gizmo viewed it as insulting)? Any lurkers?

I didn't view it particularly insulting, just how DUke views agnostism as a concept. Definitely not insulting to Isty himself.

Anyway, back on the subject, interesting article in The Baltimore Sun yesterday (which apparently hasn't gotten to the website yet so I can't provide a link) about how a leading cardinal in the Catholic church has seemingly overturned Catholic support for evolution. It seems Darwinism evolution is okay but not "willy-nilly evolution" (whatever that means). But many Catholic schools do teach Darwinism evolution.

I have to post the link when it become available so you guys can make the call as to whether I accurately described it I don't have it in front of me so I can't exactly remember how it went.

 

[Mooseman]

Trying to decide if something is "insulting" is really subjective and really becomes generally accepted as such if the majority views it as insulting. So far we have Isty and TomB viewing DUke's statement as insulting (if that was what he indeed posted). Did anyone else? EricBess, Chaos Turtle, Mr. P (not clear if Gizmo viewed it as insulting)? Any lurkers?

I didn't view it particularly insulting, just how DUke views agnostism as a concept. Definitely not insulting to Isty himself.

I just keep him on my ignore list, as my time is to valuable to waste.
My preference, I am not advocating others.

Anyway, back on the subject, interesting article in The Baltimore Sun yesterday (which apparently hasn't gotten to the website yet so I can't provide a link) about how a leading cardinal in the Catholic church has seemingly overturned Catholic support for evolution. It seems Darwinism evolution is okay but not "willy-nilly evolution" (whatever that means). But many Catholic schools do teach Darwinism evolution.

Evolution is an explanation of how things probably happened, not why they did, so if there is a grand design and evolution is the mechanics of it.... so what. And there is a preponderance of evidence that evolution, as a whole, is highly possible, if not probable. The specifics have not been totally worked out, but the basic premise is sound scientific theory.

 

[Spiderman]

The point was how religion and the Catholic church in specific currently handles evolution.

 

[Mooseman]

The point was how religion and the Catholic church in specific currently handles evolution.

Doesn't this suggest that the Catholic Church is now accepting the "mechanics" of evolutiuon?
My point was, that the theory of evolution doesn't care if there was or wasn't a "designer" behind it. I have no problem with attributing the "design" to God, and actually I do believe this is true. I'm just pointing out that works with or without out a "designer".

 

[Spiderman]

It did. Now the article was saying that the church seems to have changed its mind.

Argg! I still can't find the link on the Baltimore Sun site. I'll double-check to see if it actually came from there in print...

 

[train]

Evolution is "an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

I would suggest as Mr. Pestilence said... here

 

[Mooseman]

Now that a few of you have chimed in and some have "flamed on",
Can I get an informal poll?
1) How many of you think that alternate explanations for Evolution should be taught in the public schools?
2) Also, how many think that evolution is a farce and mankind has no ancestral connection to any other life form on this Earth?

I go first:
1) No
2) No

 

[Spiderman]

1) Yes
2) No