How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Questions for evolutionists   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Questions for evolutionists

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Kamala
Member
since 04-17-2003
Posts 66
CA, USA


25 posted 06-19-2003 09:25 PM       View Profile for Kamala   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kamala

WhiteRose,

Of course both evolutionism and creationism must be taken on faith.  But to say that creationism is not a theory is one of the absurd things I've ever heard.

You believe what you believe, and that may be the reason why -- even after reading until your eyes blurred -- you still found "no proof" in evolutionism.  I don't believe your mind is truly open to hearing those theories for what they are.  You already know (believe you know) what is right and true.  And it shows in your comments, which sadly come across as extremely close-minded.

I have serious issues with ANYONE who would presume to say that another's only fault is that he doesn't believe in God.  You are in no position to judge anybody else, decide who is at fault, or decide whether or not people should believe in God.

And lest you retort with, "Well, you're judging me," let me add... I'm not judging you *as a person*, I'm judging a statement you have made.

Kamala
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


26 posted 06-19-2003 09:48 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The Theory of Evolution seems to say:  
Everything comes from something.

The Theory of Creation:
Everything comes from nothing.

A most most important part of a theory, is whence this or that comes.  
I believe we can prove things come from other things;  but what can we prove, or have we proved,  as coming from nothing?  In this area, it is like a form of nihilism!

All I know is I don't believe in nothings - I believe in things, and that's why the theory of evolution seems to have more solidity and realness in my own feeling.  

I still have beliefs in creation; I just don't believe in "nothing!"


Essorant

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2003 10:57 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


27 posted 06-19-2003 10:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And lest you retort with, "Well, you're judging me," let me add... I'm not judging you *as a person*, I'm judging a statement you have made.

And there's a difference?

Well, let's judge your statements, then. They are exceedingly judgmental, extremely close-minded, and sadly far from the most absurd thing I've heard. Your "statements" find fault with someone for finding fault with others? And you don't see the irony in that?

Of course, I'm not judging you as a person, Kamala. I'm just judging your statements. And if those statements don't start exhibiting a bit more Respect and Tolerance, they won't be around here very long. Lighten up.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


28 posted 06-19-2003 10:28 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Kamala,

I even stated that to the person in question, and he knew that I meant it not in a derogatory way, but as a Christian I could only think of a lack of belief in God as a fault.

So you take offense in vain. The person was not offended, and we have had a very nice, respectful debate, and have disagreed on pretty much everything.

He knows that I care about his soul, and that I said what I did for that reason.

So please, don't let it get to you, it certainly didn't bother him any.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


29 posted 06-19-2003 11:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Stephanos: "But then again I don't believe in the concept of a blind mechanistic universe that arose out of chance + time + matter.  I believe that God had to do it.  If not, then everything is molecules and motion ... and I do mean everything, including human rationality, morality, and all thought."


Ron: "One doesn't preclude the other, and your conclusion need not follow from either"


Ron, what you mean by "chance" is really not chance, if you believe in God.  But many who are thoroughgoing naturalists really mean chance when they say chance.  What you are describing would better be called providence than chance.  Providence is that which seems quite natural but demonstrates God's plan.  If you believe in "evolution" as the vehicle or mechanism by which God created, then you would fall under the category of a Theistic Evolutionist (as much as I know you hate to be put in a category )  I do not (at least for now) agree with that view, because I also think there is scientific weight to show that certain complex systems could not be arrived at via the darwinian mechanism, but I respect it nonetheless.  I am merely pointing out that your view of time + matter + chance is really a directed and monkeyed with process by a divine hand.  

But many scientists would say that you are superimposing a primitive belief in a deity on top of the random nature of reality, much like children imagine a face on the moon.  So for those who would bring that charge to both you and I, my challenge to their epistemology still stands, and my questions are still valid.  Because the idea of  rationality, morality and all thought arising from sheer nature and nothing more (including a superimposed deity), is not just my conclusion from naturalism, but theirs.  And there are many more who emphatically believe this than you might suspect.  I well imagine that there are much fewer theistic evolutionists than naturalistic evolutionists.  And for many of those naturalistic kind, it (evolution) becomes the foundation for a total view of everything, exceeding theoretical science and bleeding into philosophical presuppositions.


Stephen.        

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 06-20-2003 12:02 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well, I for one, know plenty of people who make something out of nothing.   On a regular basis.

The point you still miss Rose is that 'evolutionists' don't take evolution on faith -- they take it on evidence.  And have never admited it was RIGHT.

Only that scientific process leads towards the answers we seek.  Even your auto mechanic uses the scientific process.  You give him a symptom.  He either knows from previous experience what the possible causes may be, and can begin eliminating the possibilities, or he can extrapolate a new theory if those possibilities prove not to be your car's problem.

The universe has far more severe and subtle symptoms.  An advanced degree is most certainly required to answer your questions -- but not necessarily to understand the answers (if someone really really smart explains it.)

But if you rearrange the commas in Genesis... oops -- guess we've been down that path eh?


[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-20-2003 12:37 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


31 posted 06-20-2003 01:09 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Okay, Ron, I'm a coward.

Whiterose said:

quote:
Thank you. You said what I was hoping someone would. That evolution cannot be proved, in the same way that creation cannot be proved.

Both must be taken on faith.


Except I never said that. I just said it could be wrong. Apparently, my examples of logical possibility weren't absurd enough.

Once we get away from the confusion between certainty and truth (Being certain of something in know way guarantees that it is true. Being true in know way means you can be certain of it), evolution is in a pretty secure position these days.

Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the term betabilitarianism to describe his thinking and that works for me. I bet on evolution.

  
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


32 posted 06-20-2003 08:57 AM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

The point you still miss Rose is that 'evolutionists' don't take evolution on faith

LR,
  I respectfully disagree. To believe something that cannot be conclusively proven takes a certain amount of faith.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


33 posted 06-20-2003 09:00 AM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

Sure.


Brad, if it could be wrong, then it can't be proven to be right. That's the way it sounds to me. Which would also say, you can't prove evolution, just like you can't prove creation.

Both take a certain amount of faith.
Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


34 posted 06-20-2003 11:41 AM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

Oh give me a break already...

Wave your hand in front of your face and tell me if it's there.... how can you tell your senses aren't decieving you?  If you think, are you, therefore?  Or is thought all you can say exists, and not even necissarily attribute it to yourself?  Can we know that we have free will, if all we'll ever be able to take is a single course of action amongst many other possibilities?

Can anything be proven 100%?  It all takes quite a bit of faith.  But whether or not something takes faith, and whether or not it's at all plausible, is an entirely different thing altogether... would you believe me if I told you I had a million dollars in my pocket?  You can't be entirely sure, but you could probably safely say that you don't think I do.  How about if I said I have five dollars in my pocket?  It's becoming a matter of less "faith" in that case, isn't it?

Faith isn't as simple as you make it out to be.  Science is us trying to figure out the world with what few empirical hints we're given.  Taking God out of science is probably just a result of the fact that he's something which we can't know very much about at all in the way that we come to know things through science.  Know why?  Because science is a result of us being under control of our experiences, and we can't control God.  In some ways, it seems more like we're just his experiment.

Like it or not, he just doesn't have a place in science.  Does evolution?  Well, yes, and as Brad said, we can observe the fact that mutations do occur in cells at the present date... do I personally think evolution is the way that everything came to be?  No clue.  Is my hand waving in front of my face?  No clue.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


35 posted 06-20-2003 02:33 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

LP, You sure said an awful lot to say just exactly what I said.

Can anything be proven 100%?  It all takes quite a bit of faith.

I'm a bit older, I prefer to conserve my energy, so I said it in as few words as possible.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


36 posted 06-20-2003 03:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

LR,
  I respectfully disagree. To believe something that cannot be conclusively proven takes a certain amount of faith.



But you see, that's just it Anne -- it isn't believed to be-- it is merely believed to be indicated.  See the difference?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


37 posted 06-20-2003 08:18 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think creation is more a myth than a theory.  It was created gradually to fill in  blank spaces that studies did not have capabiltiy to and give man some deliverance from great uncertainty.  It is an imagination more than realization and still fills in many blank spaces.  I believe man often senses the imagination part; yet imagination stems from responding to realness, and thus imagination has realness, It never completly false nor true, so there is legitimite reason to keep faith.  In a sense dragons exist for that some reptiles on earth have some dragon-like features.  We make imaginitive additions and we can't deny that, and I'm not denying that about the Theory of evolution.    Yet the theory of Evolution has science and the very bodily evidence of all the earth showing evolution on smaller and largers scales, in changes, maturing, again and again saying, to be is to become, to evolve.  Things are complex, and as we study more we will realize more and notice realization from imagination more.  And I think we have and are still doing that and realizing more how much creation comes from the womb of man's mind, imagination.
It seems nothing can be be created without process, and this is the Universe's process-- Evolution!  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-21-2003 03:00 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


38 posted 06-20-2003 09:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"I think creation is more a myth than a theory."

Essorant, it's only a myth if it isn't in fact true.  If there is a God who created all things, then it is true, or at least a myth that describes reality ... this of course says nothing about how much random mutation & natural selection was used in the overall outcome of things.  But there are no small number of intelligent people throughout history who have thought it to be an absurdity to imagine a universe as we see, with no designer / Creator.  These usually view the story of a mindless, directorless, and impersonal cosmos that managed (against the ultra-astronomical odds) to cough up what we see and know as nature, rife with personal, feeling, and rational beings, as quite a myth itself.  And anyway, most people who believe in Creation do not accept it as a theory but as a revelation.  Only those who do not believe it consider it to be theory.  I personally think it's a done deal.  Though it's still "open to debate" and it's always interesting, the debating is not really to determine the outcome.


Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-20-2003 09:03 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


39 posted 06-20-2003 11:24 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Brad, if it could be wrong, then it can't be proven to be right. That's the way it sounds to me. Which would also say, you can't prove evolution, just like you can't prove creation.


It's the other way around. If you can't prove it wrong, you can't prove it right. Why? It is the same process that determines one or the other and in order to do that you have to accept the process. If you don't accept the process, you can't accept either conclusion.

Your main concern has nothing to do with the processes in anatomy, biology, molecular biology, geology, paleontology, botany, paleo-botany, chemisty, computer simulations etc. that point to precisely the conclusion that evolution is the way things work.

Here is one example:

quote:
As we look at the herring gull, moving westwards from Great Britain to North America, we see gulls that are recognizably herring gulls, although they are a little different from the British from. We can follow them, as their appearance gradually changes, as far as Siberia. At about this point in the continuum, the goal looks more like the form that in Great Britain is called the lesser black-backed gull. From Siberia, across Russia, to northern Europe, the gull gradually changes to look more and more like the British lesser black-backed gull. Finally, in Europe, the ring is complete. The two geographically extreme forms meet, to form two perfectly good species: the herring and black-backed gull can be both distinguished by their appearance and do not naturally interbreed. [author -- Mark Ridley]


From Daniel Dennet's, Darwin's Dangerous Idea p. 45.

This seems pretty good example that species change over geographical space, does it not? I assume, also, that you accept my earlier, "Superbug" example. Now, I read a biology textbook from a religious school once and it explained that species are defined as those who can mate with each other and produce those who can also reproduce the same kind (Thus, for example, donkeys and horses are two different species because mules are generally unable to reproduce).  

If you accept this definition, how do you explain the distinctions between the herring and black backed gull, let alone a group of things that most people consider to be alive and yet don't reproduce by sex and still change?

Evolution by natural selecton explains these things quite well, and, at least, the traditional explanation of IDT or creationism does not.

Second, evolution by natural selection does not explain the origin of life. For that you have to look at some interesting experiments in the fifties on organic compounds and they can be created under certain conditions from inorganic stuff. We have not created life, but again the distinction between organic and inorganic is not, as used to be thought, one of kind. The two can connect.

Third, there is no Balance in Nature, the more we understand how eco-systems work, the more we study, the more we see that everything is in competition with one another. Contrary to popular belief, we are not the most violent species on the planet, we're actually pretty benign compared to most others (Of course, when we are violent, we're pretty good at it).

Forth, I have no problems teaching Creationism in schools. I do not think we should hide children from what people believe and argue about, I do not think we should pretend in America that science, religion, politics, or whatever should somehow be denied their place in trying to understand ourselves and other people.

I object, however, to the idea that IDT and evolution theory are in the same league until we start testing IDT in the same way as evolution. That is, start with an hypothesis and see how it works.

Now how do you propose to do that?

Last, the truth criterion that you ask for backfires in still one more way: it suggests that we stop teaching evolution in high schools (It certainly can't be in the university -- and I don't think it is taught except in high school now), it does not suggest that we give equal time to Creationism.

Oh, and you're asking us to be God instead of worshiping him. Somehow, I don't think that's what you intend.



  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


40 posted 06-21-2003 09:33 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


"Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened."

--Thomas Hardy
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


41 posted 06-21-2003 10:01 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I object, however, to the idea that IDT and evolution theory are in the same league until we start testing IDT in the same way as evolution. That is, start with an hypothesis and see how it works.

Why should one test be elevated over another, Brad? Is that greatly different than suggesting evolution will only be valid when directly confirmed by God?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


42 posted 06-21-2003 10:20 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ron,

But isn't that what has already been implied? The need for faith? I'm simply suggesting the reverse.

Krawdad
Member Elite
since 01-03-2001
Posts 2627


43 posted 06-21-2003 09:57 PM       View Profile for Krawdad   Email Krawdad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Krawdad

It seems to me that questions/arguments such as this one always come down to the same point.
Death.
It is all about death .
The outcome for living creatures is death.
Humans have discovered this reality.  Many have accepted it.  Many still don't like it.
The fear of it has led some, with self-knowledge and imagination in hand, to create nondeath scenarios for themselves as individuals, embodied in their gods and practiced in their religions.  Creationism, intelligent design, and after-life ideas, among others, reside in this realm of continuous individual existence.

Evolution is in another realm.
Evolution is about biological survival and includes the death of the individual as a part of the process.  Individuals that reproduce die, but leave survivors, who may themselves reproduce.  Reproduction processes embody various risks of errors and of chances for change (some good, some bad, most inconsequential).
The individuals that live long enough to reproduce can pass along the errors and changes, whatever they are.
This is evolution.  That's all it is, survival of the offspring long enough to reproduce.
No magic.
No guessing.

Kraw'
Kamala
Member
since 04-17-2003
Posts 66
CA, USA


44 posted 06-22-2003 01:11 PM       View Profile for Kamala   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kamala

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And lest you retort with, "Well, you're judging me," let me add... I'm not judging you *as a person*, I'm judging a statement you have made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And there's a difference?

Ron, I believe there really is a difference.  There is a difference between saying, "I believe what you are saying is wrong" and saying "I believe who and how you are is wrong."  What I am finding fault with is not WhiteRose, but rather her act of (what appeared to me to be) judging somebody else and deciding that he should believe in God.  However, I am glad that she posted a reply to me and explained it a little better.

As far as my statements go, I am sorry that they have come across as not respectful or tolerant.  That is not, nor is it ever, what I mean.  Sometimes, having words on a screen (without body language, tone of voice, etc.) can lead to misinterpretations (such as my misunderstanding of what WhiteRose was trying to say).  In that sense, I find it a frustrating medium sometimes.  But as you have said, you were judging my statements and not me... and I appreciate your having made that distinction.  As per your comments, I will try to be more attentive to how my words on the screen might affect people and/or how they might come across to people who don't/can't really know the personality behind them.

Kamala
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


45 posted 06-22-2003 07:29 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

" Creationism, intelligent design, and after-life ideas, among others, reside in this realm of continuous individual existence.

Evolution is in another realm.

Evolution is about biological survival and includes the death of the individual as a part of the process.
"


Krawdad,

Your first statement about all religious ideas is unfounded, as it attributes all ideas about God to a fear of Death.  Not being religious yourself, this just sounds like your explain-away theory.  It is interesting that if you study Judaism, in it's earlier times a belief in God transcended the "individual survival" mentality.  There is evidence that they had no clear concept of individual survival beyond Death.  Yet they believed in God anyway.  They claimed that God revealed himself by Divine Revelation, and this was their basis for believing.  They thought it to be true.  You can call it delusion if you like, but it does not appear as something they just fashioned after their desires or fears.


Creationism is sprung directly from a belief in God, and an attempt is made to synchronize scientific findings and percieved revelation ... But it also doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with "continuous individual experience" .. even though the religious beliefs behind creationism teach an existence beyond the grave.  To suggest that this is the motive, or the main thrust behind it is a bit presumptous.


Intelligent design, is based even more upon science.  From what I have read of it, it mostly springs from serious doubts about the ability of Darwin's process of "random mutation & natural selection" to generate the diversity and complexity of life that we see.  It is based upon such concepts as "irreducible complexity" which is a characteristic of  multi-part, complex systems which are dependent upon the exact and delicate balance of parts for function.  If one part is taken away, the entire fuction is lost.  So the burden of naturalistic evolutionists is to show how each of the myriad of steps in the building of such a system could provide a fuctional advantage to an organism.  Because natural selection depends upon a functional advantage at each turn of events.  There is nothing in the scientific journals to scientifically demonstrate how something like a bacterial flagellum (one of Michael Behe's favorite examples) could have been arrived at via a Darwinian Mechanism.
      Intelligent Design has proponents who are Deists, agnostic, as well as Christian and have a wide range of beliefs.  To say that it is based upon a desire to live forever is to ignore the reality of the situation.  You would have to conclude that all of it's proponents believe such a doctrine ... And if you conclude so, you have no real basis.  This is pigeon-holing, not looking at the facts.
     For example, Michael Behe, one of the leading voices of ID, grew up Roman Catholic.  He was taught that Evolutionary theory in no way contradicted faith in God.  So his doubts of Darwin, of his own admission, did not spring out of some dialectical tension between his religious upbringing and science.  His doubts grew out of hearing scientific argumentation that questioned the ability of the Darwinian mechanism to explain everything we see.  It was a wholly scientific doubt, because his faith was not in the balance according to his beliefs.


I could equally argue that naturalistic evolution is just an attempt to attribute god-like qualities to the face of absolute nature.  Why does the mechanism of nature always "choose" what is functionally advantageous.  Why does it weed out what is "bad" and keep what is "good", and where does the standard for meting out such judgements really come from?  Why does the outcome of such a blind process ultimately get more and more complex ... developing unicellular life into ultimately intelligent, rational, even moral beings?  These are all good questions.  But I would be foolish to say that all evolutionists have unscientific motives.  I think many of them believe it to be a true scientific  explanation of the way things are.   Likewise you should be slow to suggest that all people who disbelieve evolution do so for religious reasons, and even moreso for any specific doctrine.


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-22-2003 07:45 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


46 posted 06-22-2003 08:13 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I could equally argue that naturalistic evolution is just an attempt to attribute god-like qualities to the face of absolute nature.


I suppose you could.

quote:
Why does the mechanism of nature always "choose" what is functionally advantageous.


It doesn't.

quote:
Why does it weed out what is "bad" and keep what is "good", and where does the standard for meting out such judgements really come from?


Hard to figure out what you mean here. If good is defined but what lives and reproduces, then there's your answer.

quote:
Why does the outcome of such a blind process ultimately get more and more complex ... developing unicellular life into ultimately intelligent, rational, even moral beings?


It doesn't. The process in no way, necessarily, leads to us. Substitute plasticity for complexity and it starts making more sense.

quote:
These are all good questions.  But I would be foolish to say that all evolutionists have unscientific motives.  I think many of them believe it to be a true scientific  explanation of the way things are.   Likewise you should be slow to suggest that all people who disbelieve evolution do so for religious reasons, and even moreso for any specific doctrine.


Perhaps. It's a good thing to doubt evolution -- if it's a good theory, doubt will make it stronger. There is a good example of a non-religious doubt about evolution:

2001: A Space Odyssey

If it turns out that aliens or angels gave it a leg up, that would pretty much disprove it -- at least in its current formulation. However, that wouldn't disprove that change occurs because some things die without reproducing and some things do.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


47 posted 06-22-2003 08:26 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad,

Intelligent Design advocates do not deny that "things change" or even that natural selection changes things in smaller ways.  It does however question how irreducibly complex systems arose via random mutation & natural selection.  It is a valid question that science has not really answered.  It has only concluded that it must've happened because they're here.  But when ID theorists do this (using probability and information theory in suggesting intelligence behind the system), it's slurred as "faith", when evolutionists do it, it's called proper scientific inference.

Stephen.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


48 posted 06-22-2003 08:38 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"If it turns out that aliens or angels gave it a leg up, that would pretty much disprove it -- at least in its current formulation"


We needn't go extraterrestrial for our doubts of Darwin.  I like to consider his own words.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


Stephen.
Jamie
Member Elite
since 06-26-2000
Posts 3219
Blue Heaven


49 posted 06-22-2003 10:14 PM       View Profile for Jamie   Email Jamie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Jamie's Home Page   View IP for Jamie

32f is the melting point of ice
J
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Questions for evolutionists   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors