I think we all know that evolution is true and that increasingly large parts of relgious texts are being considered fables. Genesis was one of the first to fall with Darwin’s theory.
Well, the US is still having trouble: Intelligent Design.
Your first post will be moderated -- if it is not spam and is not illegal it will be approved. Subsequent posts by you will automatically be approved.
Some words will automatically cause your comment to be blacklisted and there will be no warning. Avoid referring to the names of pharmaceutical drugs. If in doubt, copy your comment so that you can paste and amend it.
Apologies for any inconvenience; blame the spammers
October 7th, 2005 at 2:03 am
when you use the words “Know is true” and “theroy” in the same sentence does it make sense?
October 7th, 2005 at 2:05 am
please excuse my spelling
October 7th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
It is a common misconception that ‘theory’ implies it is not the truth. In science everything is based on theories. The ‘laws’ of physics are always open to revision when evidence comes along that shows that another theory better matches the available evidence.
The theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are both accepted as true because there is no alternative that better matches the available evidence. Intelligent design is not, and can never be science because there is no measurable evidence. It requires an implicit assumption and “faith”.
When established religions have been saying that:
1) The sun is not at the centre of the solar system;
2) Evolution is false
3) God does exist.
They are just steps along an inevitable path to the truth. Eventually, maybe, there will be evidence to suggest that there was some intervention by ‘God’. In my opinion, however, it is far more likely that there was no such intervention and that the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries will be looked back upon as the time when religion unravelled.
October 9th, 2005 at 2:16 am
thank you for commenting on my comment and forgive me for continuing with the matter but this is a subject I feel very strongly about. you say there is no measurable evidence to back intelligent design and I say it proves God himself is a scientist. I have a degree in industrial design so when looking at life, the universe and everything i can’t help but see the “design” of it all. For me, it is far less accecptable to theorize such complex, detailed, self sufficent and perpetually working pieces of “living” machinary that are this world and its inhabitants could just “happen” and evolved from nothing, with no reason. Please give me some example that proves this possible for anything in science. Darwin could find NO proof that is why he thought up an alternitive. When you mention relitivity, do you know Einstien said his motovation for study was- he wanted to know God’s thoughts? He too must have seen a design. I enjoy reading you site and see you have very thought out and intelligent ideas, I would love the challenge of debating you futher on this if you are game. I promise i will not try to “save” you, and thank you for not poking fun at my bad grammer and spelling (it is a flaw in the “design ” of me)
October 9th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
The further back in time you look, the more people attributed things to God. Einstein lived in a more religious time and so was more likely to attribute his existence to God. I don’t think that is necessarily a thing of the past yet, but I think it will be.
For example, if you set some rules (as there are rules in physics) to a limited computer programme it is possible to create what looks like order but is actually the result of interactions with the rules and other elements within the computer program - see this. What this proves is that evolution can, given the constraints create what looks like intelligent design.
Of course the obvious hole this leaves is that the rules must be set in one of several ways. Are/were the rules set and by who (God) or what process (science)? My belief is that the Anthropic Principle answers this problem and provides us with a non-spiritual raison d’etre.
God as scientist is an interesting suggestion. This makes me wonder, though, what the difference between God and an advanced alien civilisation is. Regardless, if God created the universe to fit scientific principles, the established religions must be false - they don’t mention anything approaching science in their writings.
The question from a scientific point of view should not be, what evidence is there to suggest there is no God. The question must be what evidence is there to suggest there is a God, or, more succinctly what processes could possibly have occurred without holy intervention?
Finally, from God’s point of view, what would be the interest of a single civilisation in a non-descript part of the galaxy be? A child who plays with an ant’s nest finds it interesting for a very short period of time. And that’s not even a fair analogy - the universe is so much more immense than our brains can comprehend.
On your grammar, I do not think it matters much so long as your communication makes sense - the idea of a standardised spelling system is reasonably recent and grammar has been evolving (no pun intended) since Normans and Anglo Saxons started sharing words and before. I look forward to the debate!
October 9th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
[…] I would like to thank ‘Leanne‘ for her comments on Evolution. Just to add to that growing debate: […]
October 9th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
Having talked to a lot of scientists, many are less dogmatic on what the word “theory” means thna others are.
Furthermore, the ID people aren’t, from what I can see, relying any more on faith than, say, S.J. Gould or Richard Dawkins. They’re mostly analyzing probabilities and showing how through the scientific method you can draw inferences.
Although I don’t think these people are right, I do find it instructive that their critics seem to routinely misrepresent their position. I find William Dembski most interesting to read on this:
http://www.designinference.com/
They’ve published in the peer reviewed literature. They’re working under a theoretical construct and making predictions. You can’t say anymore that it’s just “well a miracle occurred” that they’re working under.
They’re going to have to be answered directly sooner or later, and loudly bellowing that what they’re doing isn’t science isn’t going to help in the long run.
October 9th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Dean, I am interested in the article you have posted here and in the Design Inference documents at the link you gave.
Of course if the argument is that the changes in life currently attributed to evolution happened too fast in some circumstances, this only suggests the evolution works along with intelligent design. Also, if intelligent design is happening at regular intervals, there should be some evidence of the mechanism or interference at that time. That would be interesting, though still attributable to worldly, rather than supernatural causes.
I am heartened when looking at William A Dembski’s blog, that most of his posts are criticisms of criticisms of Intelligent Design, rather than a positive ascertion to the contrary. I look forward to giving his musings, and yours, more thought.
I still like the following quote:
“Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn’t mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.”
October 10th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Suggesting god as the cause of a phenomenon not fully understood is not an advance. But it’s not just logically equivalent to saying we don’t know. It’s a pseudo explanation. Don’t be afraid of saying you don’t know. Be afraid of pseudo explanations. If we permit these we’re stepping backwards.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
sim’s comment is right, and the reason for my intrest in this subject. I think it is right to say “we dont know”. I personally beleive intelligent design to have more proof than darwin, but my feeling is that this is something that does not need to be TAUGHT, but openly debated on a personal level with friends and your in own minds. To teach this, is what will make us stop wondering, and i dont concider thinking about god a step back. maybe we walk a circle and will eventually return to a point where we stop tring to explain things away.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
Oh goodness no - there’s no proof for Intelligent Design AT ALL. There is evidence to support Darwin’s theory.
Thinking about God as part of science is only a step back if you do not look for answers. Unfortunately this is what a lot of anti-evolutionists tend to do. Science is the search for an explanation for the universe’s mysteries - religion is an acceptance of the status quo relying on an abstract, and entirely unexplainable, as a cause or reason for anything.
Religion and science are not opposed, but there is no reason to involve God in teaching of science because His relevance to that mounts to zero. If God does exist, which I do not find compelling, he certainly allows the universe to exist without his intervention at any point (except in ancient fables: the Old Testament and Koran for example).
A question that always strikes me, and that is never answered, is why God (of Jewish-Christian-Islam) never involved himself outside of the Middle East. Why do the Incas, Aztecs, Chinese and Maoris know nothing about the Jewish God? Why do we so readily accept that the Greek and Egyptian religious processes are false now? What benefit, or not, is there to God’s existence and what, if any, difference does it make to us? I would suggest, none.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Darwin himself said his own theory, concidering the complexity of life, is highly impossible. not knowing this leds me to believe you have never even read Darwins theory. -you say involving God in science is a step back- When i mentioned seeing a “scientific” design is what enabled Enstien to unravel some of its mystery - and by the way Enstien meant God in Spinoza terms- he was an agnostic and cared little about religon. If you dont want to beleive in God (in a christian sense) that is your choice but is that your only reason for siding with someone who didnt even believe his own theory. to use your own “anthropic principle” against you , maybe you need a smaller net.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:09 am
I thought this was a settled fact by now and that creationists had at least conceded the facts.
Darwin, a scientist, delayed publication because he was concerned about what people would think and eventually only published when it was obvious someone else was going to publish a virtually identical paper. Darwin of course believed what he was writing - there’s no other reason to write a scientific paper.
The Spinoza belief in God is the first step to atheism - starting from a devout follower of one religion a pragmatist has realised that there are too many holes in the established religions…
It is strange that you do not debate the detailed parts of evolution that you believe are flawed by instead attempt to attack the scientist involved. 95% of scientists support evolution so the case for disbelief actually highlights a communication problem. Why do you think that evolution is not true?
October 14th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Dear Gavin, I love you for letting me take up so much of your time and space and thank you. my purpose in this is was not to anger or insult you or even change your mind but to make us think. What you have said above is brilliant, it seems you are very smart, I on the other hand am not. I dont have facts to give you all I have is what I see and my own reasoning. I never said i didnt believe science, I am in fact amazed by it and this is the very thing, to me that proves creation. There is reason and purpose to everything. if you take a simple flower for example , you can rip it apart with science to know why and how it works. The seed in the ground, water,sunlight- blah blah. Now this flower also serves a purpose its roots hold the ground together -and it gives bees something to do. you may say the bee or flower evolved to do this. but it doesnt explain the beauty of it all. design is also art. Why did science randomly evolve flowers to smell good and be pretty? For bees? then why do we also enjoy them? could not bees have evolved to be attracted to ugly, pooh smelling flowers? What care would science alone have for our enjoyment. That is a very girly example sorry I dont know how to explain it any better. But now lets look at evolution being real. To say all of this world just happened on its own and from nothing due to science and the laws of phycis would make it the “normal”. so when we look at the universe and see other suns we have no choice but to expect each one also has an Earth with life and even humans because this is what happens. You would also have to say evolution never stops. Darwin says this is for survival, so plants animals and the earth would also be evolving. he says we split somehow from apes and became over time modern man, for survival. What sets us apart from the apes? Intelligence? Concidering apes are still content with their jungle lives and have survived. What else sets us apart from other beasts. All i can see is that we are the only species that destroys- each other and our enviorment. For our survival? now the earth for its survival would try to evolve in ways to rid itself of its infestation- disease maybe. We inturn use our intelligance to find better ways to advance and combat the earths self defense. eventually we would over come the earth and head in to space where we can seek out and destroy the entire universe- for our survival. according to evolution the is no good or evil. If we are so smart why have we not evolved into anything more than greedy parisites. We also put faith in nothing but ourselves and will eventually not know how to survive without tecnology. maybe the earth will win by simply giving up. I do not wish to debate religon with you but you asked some questions,I have to say i am a christian, not the ordiary kind, and agree with you that orginized religon is corrupted. but it is creation that proves to me there is a God not the other way around, and some evolution in life would be part of the design I just dont beleive darwin. If you dont see life the universe and everything -especially science- as a beautiful miracle, I cant make you. What god says of our future is- good and evil battle but evil must run its coarse I cant tell you why it is centered in the middle east but all these religons (Christian jew and musslim) are tied together. musslims will take over the world jews will be decived and join them ( because the antichrist will put an end to war) and christians will be killed by beheading. Why do I want to beleive in god? Because I want to have hope that one day this world will be safe and beautiful again the way it was created to be. Why dont i want to beleive darwin? and have it taught as fact? Because it will take all hope away. If this is taking a step back I am happy to sit here while you all go on ahead.