Thumbs Up

[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!

[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.

[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..

[Papewaio]

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