Thumbs Up

[master of the puppets]

The idea of a god is compatible with the idea of a Big Bang, IMO.

i can easily say that there is evolution and confidently say that there is enough evidence to prove it but i say that there may, may be some great being that created the universe. cause i need some more evidence to show thew big bang.

[Steppe Merc]

Gawain, can you explain for a dumb ass like me the difference between Evolution and evolution? I had no idea what the hell the articale meant by that. I don't see a difference: everything today evolved from a more simple form.

[Don Corleone]

As someone who believes in Scientific Theory, and Logical Acquisition of knowledge, I can't discount the fact that there may be a god. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence and all that. But I can discount the vast majority of organized religions. The idea of a god is compatible with the idea of a Big Bang, IMO. But there is nothing about god that can logically disprove evolution. Where is the criticism coming from? The churches. The churches who maintained that the world was flat. The churches who maintain that the entire world was flooded in 40 days and 40 nights. ect.

You can't disprove evolution. You also can't disprove god. But, unlike god, there is ample evidence of Evolution, and no evidence to disprove evolution.

Please. There are scientists who believe it is perfectly ethical to perform experiments on uniformed human subjects. Unless you want me to lump all scientists into that categorization, please do not lump all members of an organized church into this one. There are plenty of organized chuches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Anglican Communion, the Presbyterain Church USA, and a boatload of others that have official statements indicating that all evidence points to an evolution of life on earth over billions of years and that Genesis should be taken as a metaphor, not a documentary. Thank you.

[drone]

Drone, I think it's about 4.5 billion years (the age of the earth).

I couldn't remember what the latest guess was, I finished Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" several months ago...

[Petrus]

I beg to differ. Just listen to many people here . They believe evolution is a fact not a theory. They belive it just as much as religous people believe in creationism. The difference is that many religous people admit that evolution is part of intelligent design while secularists say evolution alone is responsible. It is they who are closed minded.



Almost all these religions say the same thing. That god created man.



But they are entirely compatible.

It is very possible for some persons to have the same kind of atitude concerning a scientific theory and a religious belief, but does this make the scientific theory equivalent to the religious belief?

What i do remember of school was not what you describe, it was the feeling to understand something and to understand it because it was coherent, not because it came from a teatcher.

What i do remember of catechism was he feeling of knowing something without understanding it and to know it because it was presented as a pure fact by adults to the child i was.

Learning children was is right and wrong is something necessary, in my opinion, but i think school shall be reserved to understanding how things work, not to learn an absolute truth which can only exist if the person that learns it is a believer.

Concerning the compatibility of the beliefs, are you sure about that?

I do not know much outside the different christian/jew/muslim beliefs but it seems to me that induism has a completely different view of the world and of it's origins.

[Don Corleone]

Don: I speak of the churches who refuse to accept evolution. Not the ones that have come to cope with it.

You're taking an extreme but rather small minority and presenting it as representative as the group at large. Please don't do that.

I started my studies at University in pre-med, lots of chemistry & biology. I moved over to Electrical Engineering, which requires a fair amount of physics & mathematics. Through it all, if anything, I became more convinced of a supreme being, not less. I do find it interesting that the secular humanists tend to spin evolution for their own purposes... for example, it's very rare outside of scholarly circles that you hear evolution described properly... that the process of evolutions is quantumized, not linear. Something causes 'life' to make a big step forward at discrete intervals in time. Essentially, the history of the earth is a long period of stasis punctuated with brief periods of incredibly rapid development.

[Don Corleone]

People who bastardize a fact for their own ends are no better than those who deny it, or seek to cover it up.

Wisely said.

[KafirChobee]

Not long ago, I watched a program entitled "I was a teenage Darwinist" on EWTN (you know the Catholic Church tv network). It is a one man show (and by typing the title in a search engine you can find all sorts of supporting stuff for the teaching if Inventive Design - ID). The speaker (entertainer), Atty. Woody Cozad, starts off explaining how his parents forced him to believe in evolution. But that once he realized how Copernicus, Gallileo, and others were so wrong and the church so right about their "theories" and the real biblical scientific evidence - he realized that Darwin must have be wrong too. And on and on he goes with misleading "evidence", conjecture and the premise that ancient philosophers have been proven wrong (well, updated maybe, but not exactly wrong). He ignores any and everthing that might get in his way of telling the truth, and instead uses a demented reasoning skill (that only an attorney has) to promote his one sided affair with ID.

Intelligent Design, has nothing to do with intelligence. It is about the "Churches'" idea that Genisis is an accurate depiction of how we were created. It is, misguided.

I recall, someone asking a minister (in my bible school class) about the 7 days vs evolution. I always liked his response. He said (more or less) that the bible is an explanation by ancient man to explain things as they understood them and used allegories to poeticly explain them. That, a day to God might be a million, even a billion years, as time means nothing to a supremebeing. That it was not man's place to judge or take things literal in the bible, but to simply embrace it as guide line for how we live our lives - not as a scientific study of our creation.

For me, it is that simple. Taking things literal from the BOOK is a stretch of faith that may never have been intended - but, is now a popular means to demonstrate (for some) how absolute their faith is.

To do so, we must accept that The Sun was stopped in the sky for a battle to be won. That a man could live inside a whale (versus living within himself blindly). That a man could go without water or food for 40 days and nights (versus going with out the food of god - the man's belief - for that time).

Attempting to substitute ID with evolution is absurd, to teach it in our schools is a breach of church and state (it is taught in Sunday schools - leave it there), and to suppose that making it a "big E - little e "issue somehow justifies it absurd.

BTW, you can catch "I was a teenage Darwinist" again on EWTN, Sept. 3rd at 11:30 PM.

http://lobudget.com/mellifluent_info...ign-in-school/

More support for ID - these are real, I swear it. Had you read my post above you could have found them yourself, btw. :

http://slate.com/id/2118320

and my absolute fave:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/10511/1051_01.asp

This is what you are arguing in favor of.

[Navaros]

That's the biggest load of hooey i've heard in this thread yet. There are examples of Evolution at work within our own timeframe. It's proven.

Undoubtedly you know the story of the moths? Some industrial town or another in the 1800s, I think, started producing a ton of smoke and dust. In this environment, there was a species of moth that was white, but like any other species there were mutations. In this environment, all the white moths were easy for the birds to pick out and eat, but the ones that were born grey as a birth defect went on to survive. And since then the species has been grey.

regardless of everything you've said here, i'm sure you are familiar with the scientific method and how evolution fails to meet it's standards. i presume you've neglected that on purpose because there's nothing that can really be said to the contrary on that point.

as for your story: that is not an example of evolution. for evolution such as what would be required for man to turn into apes, it would require new genetic material to magically be added to the genetic makeup. but in reality, new genetic material is never added.

[KafirChobee]

Ooooops, it's:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

I love the teacher, it's just so true. Reminds me of my 1st-2nd-3rd grade one (small school). You do know what this means don't you? We are all going to hell - 'cept the true right-winger-religious coalition. And, I had no idea Jesus was God. Thought he was the son or something.

Also, that the world is only 6,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs? Well, guess Hollywood got it right after all.

[Ronin]

Gawain, can you explain for a dumb ass like me the difference between Evolution and evolution? I had no idea what the hell the articale meant by that. I don't see a difference: everything today evolved from a more simple form.

some people like to imagine that there is a magic diference between let´s say....creating a new bread of dog through selective breeding for example that they refer to as evolution and someting like man evolving from other primates, that they call Evolution...

what reason they have to pretend not to see that the 2 things are the same thing only in diferent timeframes.....who knows???

[Steppe Merc]

as for your story: that is not an example of evolution. for evolution such as what would be required for man to turn into apes, it would require new genetic material to magically be added to the genetic makeup. but in reality, new genetic material is never added.

No. It would require mutations in the genetic material, which are continued and pass down because they are helpful in order to survive. Though why man would turn into apes, I don't quite understand...

Ronin, so it's mainly just an objection to the ape to human thing?

[sharrukin]

That man and animals evolved, seems clear.
The question is how?
There isn't really much evidence for the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Natural selection is also obvious but its role in evolution is a lot less clear.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of any missing links.
There is also very little evidence for random evolutionary changes, and some serious questions as to how random mutations would give any life form an advantage.
What is the immediate payoff for random mutations that natural selection would otherwise eliminate?
These questions are being asked by some of the best minds in scientific circles.
Unfortunately there aren't very many 'Best Minds'!
So to suggest there is no question regarding the theory of evolution is false.

There seems to me to be a lot of similarities between religion and the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is NOT evolution or the scientific theory.
The Theory of Evolution is one thing.
Evolution itself is another.
The scientific theory is also separate.

There seems to be an obvious order to the universe.
Some claim that it only 'seems' that way.
To postulate that there exists some directing agent is not inconsistant with the facts as we know them.
This directing agent may very well be a natural phenomenon operating by a mechanism currently unknown, or a known mechanism operating in a currently unsuspected way.
There may come a time when our knowledge makes such a concept unsupportable or it may validate such a concept.
The question as to the existance of God is in fact separate even if some scientists, and some religious individuals do not wish to make it so.
The evidence in both cases is not religious, although it has serious implications to both.

We are not the shining jewel of all creation! There will be men in the future who look back and scoff at our ignorance. Our knowledge is not complete and there is more to be learned and to pound on a copy of the "Origin of Species" and say, no more knowledge is needed than what is in the 'good book' is the height of ignorance!

[sharrukin]

No. It would require mutations in the genetic material, which are continued and pass down because they are helpful in order to survive. Though why man would turn into apes, I don't quite understand...

Ronin, so it's mainly just an objection to the ape to human thing?

Evolution is a fact.
We do not know if the Darwinian theory is a fact.
There are other theories that may be closer to the truth.
ID, Darwinian, etc are just some of many different theories.

[Ronin]

Ronin, so it's mainly just an objection to the ape to human thing?

basically yeah.....mostly a way to protect their beliefs....since they can´t refute that evolution can happen in a controled situation they made up the point that in a long timeline the same biological rules don´t aply....don´t know who was the "genious" that first came up with it tough

[Steppe Merc]

Well yeah, Origin of Species doesn't touch much in the way of human evolution, so in order to get the whole picutre you have to look at the later findings.

But about missing links, most scientists seem to think there weren't any, at least the idea that scientists used to have. There wasn't just one missing link between apes and man, especially since there were multiple branches and hominids living side by side in some cases.
There are unanswered questions, in particular about human evolution. Why did homo sapien and it's ancestors do better than the other hominids?
But that doesn't disprove it, just because there are holes.

[sharrukin]

There are unanswered questions, in particular about human evolution. Why did homo sapien and it's ancestors do better than the other hominids?
However, the evolution is better than nothing, and better than semi to not at all scientific religous ideas.

Yes, but if the "Theory of Evolution" becomes untouchable and unquestionable how do we ever ask such questions? I don't believe in silencing anyone in a scientific debate based on who they are.

I don't care if Bessie the Cow asks the question they should be answered. And if we cannot answer the question that is even better. Hard questions are good IMO, and students should be made to realize that there are huge gaps in our knowledge.

Very few are saying that evolution did not take place.
The question is how?

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, but if the "Theory of Evolution" becomes untouchable and unquestionable how do we ever ask such questions? I don't believe in silencing anyone in a scientific debate based on who they are.

I don't care if Bessie the Cow asks the question they should be answered. And if we cannot answer the question that is even better. Hard questions are good IMO, and students should be made to realize that there are huge gaps in our knowledge.

Very few are saying that evolution did not take place.
The question is how?

Oh. Well, yes, scientifically questioning it is certaintly good. I just am not sure how scientfic intelligent deisng is, that is all.

[Silver Rusher]

i agree, evolution is fact while religion is a mere hollow story to aquiest the devotion of the foolish peoples. your "Gods" may be real but only in youir mind, and one day he to will fizzle out as all his believers bite the dust, this is fact. mabey that god is real to them, just as zeus was real, and baal, and epona and all the other gods who now are mere powerless names.

Hits the nail right on the head here. Religion is like if some cartographer from europe in the early middle ages made a random map of east asia when nobody from europe had properly explored it, and said he was 100% certain it was absolutely correct, causing the people to use it in their everyday lives.

[sharrukin]

Oh. Well, yes, scientifically questioning it is certaintly good. I just am not sure how scientfic intelligent deisng is, that is all.

If we are honest it doesn't matter how scientific it is, or not.

It should be held to same the same standards that any scientific theory is held. If it fails then that will become obvious. You only empower a theory by refusing to give it a fair hearing. The Darwinian theory has NOT been held to the same standards of other theories and lacks any credible proof and yet is still held in high regard. This is not what should happen to the Intelligent Design theory or to Darwins theory. There shouldn't be any exceptions or sacred cows.

[Kanamori]

One describes how things came to be, and the other seeks to explain results that seem too complex. The "how" can be tested in a scientific environment, whereas the philosophical "why" cannot be. That is why ID does not belong in a Science class.

[Red Harvest]

One describes how things came to be, and the other seeks to explain results that seem too complex. The "how" can be tested in a scientific environment, whereas the philosophical "why" cannot be. That is why ID does not belong in a Science class.

Bingo, we have a winner!

Personally, I've never seen that Evolution is counter to basic creation stories. It is the "why" that differs. Teach the science in school about the mechanism as best we can understand it. Leave the big picture "why" to churches, family, etc. Either that or do we want to start requiring churches to give "equal time?"

It is interesting that folks are still trying to dispute evolution as if it was a very shaky theory. Therefore, all sorts of other truly unprovable religious theories are elevated to the same "scientific" level in their eyes..

[sharrukin]

It is interesting that folks are still trying to dispute evolution as if it was a very shaky theory.

I haven't seen a single post disputing evolution?
What is being disputed is the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design claims to be a theory of evolution so it can hardly be suggested that it disputes the reality of evolution.

[Papewaio]

An increase in frequency of one type of Flu over another is evolution.

[sharrukin]

An increase in frequency of one type of Flu over another is evolution.

Wouldn't that be natural selection?

[sharrukin]

Natural Selection is evolution.

A lot of scientists have their doubts.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Kanamori
One describes how things came to be, and the other seeks to explain results that seem too complex. The "how" can be tested in a scientific environment, whereas the philosophical "why" cannot be. That is why ID does not belong in a Science class.

You couldnt be more wrong. Both seek to explain results that seem too complex. Thats the whole point. You are again making my point calling a theory fact. All ID is basicly saying is God made evolution. Its like saying ford cars came from the ford factory and Henry ford had nothing to do with it.

[Papewaio]

You can't test if there is or isn't a god or gods with science. So the why is best left to philosophy and religion classes. While the mechanics of theories and their testing left to science.

If it can be tested within the scientific framework, then teach it in a science class.

If it relies on something that is untestable then leave it to a religion class.

If it is a fuzzy area then make a new class like comparative belief systems.

[Papewaio]

Natural Selection is evolution.

Natural selection is a method of gene frequency change. Another is mutation of the gene itself.

In the modern synthesis, "evolution" means a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool. This change may be caused by a number of different mechanisms: natural selection, genetic drift or changes in population structure (gene flow).

[Tribesman]

All ID is basicly saying is God made evolution.
Gawain ; In that case teach it in religeous studies where it belongs .