Evolution

[jtward01]

I don't know if the scientists have evolution quite right, but I sure can't swallow creationism. That just makes no sense to me. Sounds more like something someone made up to explain what they didn't understand. I do believe in God and divine guidance, so why couldn't God have direction man's evolution?

[supersophie]

Sounds more like something someone made up to explain what they didn't understand.

That's pretty much the definition of religion. People were trying to understand where they came from and why certain things exist so they made stories to answer their questions. People wondered why and how the world was created, so the Bible offered an explanation.

[vs-eh?]

Before people rehash this argument, please read the thread in its entirety before commenting...

Sorry Summit...

How could a computer have been created from evolution without a creator. But computers have evolved. I believe there are evidences of a divine creator and are willing to discuss them openly.

A poor analogy to say the least....So you are comparing global evolution over billions of years to computer "evolution" which is a product of man and has only been around for what? 40 years?

I do believe in God and divine guidance, so why couldn't God have direction man's evolution?

The point is it can't be proven. Could "God" have "directed" (which implies that evolution is leading to man, which it didn't) man's evolution? Sure, but that relies on your respected faith and belief in a system that cannot ever be tested or proven. Natural selection at least proposes a mechanism that can be tested, found fault within, etc...

People wondered why and how the world was created, so the Bible offered an explanation.

Exactly, but it is written by a man. A story.

[emt_hound]

I dunno, Quagmire, in the 6 years since my Blazer was built, it has developed several adaptive behaviors to cope with the mountainous terrain around here. Additionally, it has learned how to make fire and can communicate using simple primary number sequences.

If that wasn't enough...my Blazer's offspring (what I like to call "Tonkas") show some indications of random mutations including a variety of colors, independant rear suspensions, tinted windows, elongated exhaust systems, and one hybridized gasoline/diesel engine (I call him "Spunky"). And it gets worse! My Blazer is teaching her offspring the same adaptive behavior she learned herself. As soon as their older, I'm going to put the whole litter on ebaymotors.com.

And that's only been one generation! Imagine what will happen in another couple of years. I predict the advent of the Borg.

[MidwestMedic]

OK. I have to say I have only read about half of this thread. So, apologize profusely for any repetition.

I did some Webster searches and I think these apply to this topic.

Faith - see 2B1 - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...amp;x=0&y=0

and the quote below from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hypothesis

HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

My point(s)?

1. Belief in God (any higher being) requires Faith. Don't bother trying to prove or disprove it 100%. It's not gonna work. Also, any level of belief in the interaction of a higher being with the world or themselves in particular, also requires Faith. It's just not something you can prove on a chalk board or computer model.

2. People tend to misunderstand the use of the word theory in scientific jargon. Yes, I learned it in high school. But, not everyone is as much a nerd as me and remember the definition. It is common for people to interpret "theory of evolution" using a different definition of theory and not understand how much testing truly has gone into this. This, of course, has been a fact that special interest groups have taken full advantage of. The "it's just a theory" argument.

3. Belief in a higher being and belief in evolution/adaption are not mutually exclusive. It is now well known that the Earth is not the center of the universe (thank you Copernicus) but rather it travels around the sun as one of 10 other planets (yes, I did say 10, not 9, things have changed again). That does not change the nature of the debate about a higher being. Why should evolution? Apes and "Man" share a common ancestor, it has been highly researched with lots of proof being "dug up". You can still have Faith in a higher being and believe science can yield truths. If God created everything around us, the whole universe, and it is obvious he gave us free will, why can't things change and given the scope of time here, why cannot things change A LOT.

which gets to my last point.

4. Some people believe that the bible is the literal Word of God. I'm sorry, I cannot believe this. There have been to many translations, to many monks transcribing and to many politicians (King James) meddling with this stuff over the years. I believe that Genesis is an allegory written by someone to teach a lesson. If it was written today, I suspect it would be changed to encompass dinosaurs, and early animal life etc. Heck, if it was the hand of God helping the original writer, maybe it was included and it's just been lost over the years.

Just my 2 (or 10) cents. No attempt here to argue or offend anyone. Sorry to be so Christian centered on this post, but it is the perspective I know best.

[vs-eh?]

You can still have Faith that a higher being and believe science can yield truths.

Of coarse you can, I have never said otherwise.

The point is this, you cannot even challenge creationism/belief in a higher being. It is all based likely on what we created as a species thousands and thousands of years ago.

Why teach/preach something that is the definition of a hypothetical with no real current evidence to offer otherwise. There is nothing, zip, zero...But the naive learn this and speak of it as fact, too many people.

BLIND FAITH PEOPLE.

These are all getting to be moot points.

We live in the Matrix.

A higher being creates and destroys the universe every nanosecond, but makes me believe that we live in continuity.

My cat created and controls the universe.

You must believe in these examples. You have to, they are not prone to any type of disproof.

Why would an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent higher being "care" about us? Why? We again are imposing supposedly HUMAN characteristics on to this being. It is not a human, if it does exist.

Things on this earth, which is all we know, and now "testable" by imposed rules of the "laws of nature". People will argue that "God" created these laws, but anyway... You can at least prove/disprove certain things with what we have like the theory of gravity, geo/helio-centric theory, darwinism, lamarkism...these have gone through the scientific method and have been proven/disproven. As much as they can be....but again paradigms shift, but unless this higher being starts smiting peeps, I doubt it will roll into the realm of the current accepted theory. But honestly I hope it does, I think everyone, deep down, hopes that a higher being will reveal itself in our lifetime and show us the error of our ways. But this has been going on for thousands upon thousand of generations. You have to go with what you know.

[emt_hound]

The "Friends" episode regarding Phoebe's disbelief in evolution is on TBS right now...

heehee. :wink:

[csr]

I'm atheist and believe that evolution is a valid theory.

[MidwestMedic]

In an attempt to offend half the people out there, here is some related humor.

Taken from this web site: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mcsnee/433748.html

A New Theory

Yesterday, President Bush endorsed the idea of teaching intelligent design 'theory' alongside evolution and natural selection in schools.

I'd like to propose a third alternative theory. I call it the theory of "Design by Unintelligent Hand," or "DUH" for short. The basic concept? The Creator is an utter dumbass.

Consider the evidence:

1. The dark. One of the big ideas behind Intelligent Design is that there's no way an eye could evolve. My contention? There's no way a Creator who wasn't a goddamn imbecile would create eyes that don't work half the time.

2. Toes. They're just dangling there, off the end of your feet, with a bunch of fragile little bones. Combine these with #1 above, and you've got a recipe for disaster. You think Jonathan Ives would have created something as stupid as toes?

3. Nonspecific urethritis. I can understand a Creator trying to enforce draconian anti-sex measures by punishing people who break them with oozing pustules and fiery pain when they urinate, because, hey, that's what Creators do. But random urinary tract infections? Just, y'know, out of the blue, not being able to take a piss without screaming? That's just stupid.

4. Gravity's acceleration. Stuff breaks when it falls at 32 ft/sec^2. A little gravity's good--you don't want your coffee to go flying off the desk, after all--but why's it got to be so heavy? And don't get me started on what happens when you drop a bowling ball on #2 up there. You think the Creator hasn't done that a time or two and thought to himself, "Good gravy, I'm a fool"?

5. Tiger cubs. They are almost unbearably cute--so cute that if you saw one, you'd want to take it home. But then it grows up and EATS YOU. Good thinkin', there, C!

6. Genetics and natural selection. Anybody who's ever smushed a generation of drosophila melanogaster except the ones born with red eyes and has then seen the next generation born with red eyes understands the principles behind heritable traits and the idea that selecting for those traits makes it more likely the next generation will have them. So we have a Creator who goes to the trouble of making this simple, effective system, and then ignores it completely to create a billion or so species out of thin air. The sharpest tool in the shed? I THINK NOT.

Obviously, this is a theory whose time has come. Please join me in demanding that DUH be taught alongside evolution and intelligent design in our nation's classrooms. It's easy to support: just copy and paste this html into your journal!

[Asysin2leads]

I looked at the map in Time magazine, and surprise, surprise, its the states in the bible belt of the south that are pushing this "intelligent design back-door to lovin' jaysus" stuff. I say, let them. New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, much of the Midwest, the West Coast, we all say "SAY WHAT?" when someone says "let's make up some wacky theories to why we are the way we are rather than the scientifically validated ones".

If the south wants to remain steeped in the Middle Ages, they can knock themselves out. Their children will be less prepared for the reality of a science and technology driven world, leaving more jobs and opportunity for those of us who paid attention in biology class. Like Darwin said, its survival of the fittest.