When I consider the posts from those who believe in evolution I am left with these impressions (where I say evolution I mean Macro-evolution): 1. Evolution cannot be false, that is impossible. 2. It is absolute. Proven beyond all doubt. 3. The majority opinion has to be correct. 4. Data and research can only be interpreted one way. 5. Science in totally unified on this. 6. There has never been any credible challenge to evolution. 7. The knowledge of the exact origin of the universe is a certainty This is narrow and dogmatic, but I would expect that to happen where fiercely personal issues are discussed and there are opposing views. I believe in God in accordance with the Bible. Many say they don't believe in a God and others say they do but they do not accept the Bible account of creation. If this topic did not have God implications or Bible implications would the discussion be so narrow and dogmatic? I think the feelings run high because we are addressing something fundemental to our existence. Like I have stated before, we all will have the diffinitive answer to these questions after death. No one (me included) will want to be wrong. Carry on the debate.
Projection? Those of us who understand the difference between between scientific law and theory would not agree with your opinion of their opinion.
I don't believe the bible account of creation was ever intended to be literal. It is in the form of a poem, that was used at the time. It is set up with stanzas, poetic structure, and rhythm when taken in its original language. Looking at it as a poem that shouldn't be strictly adhered to in a scientific or historical realm it makes sense and follows evolution. It starts with seas and creatures in the seas who then came on land. Then there were animals on land, man made his appearence much later. I believe in evolution. I also believe in God in accordance with the bible. But I understand that some believe the creation poem should be taken literally. Others believe that to do so is denying the poetic license and expression, and placing meaning where it wasn't intended to be placed. I think there is room for disagreement. As a person who believes that evolution occurred, I have also advocated poking holes in the evolutionary theory is a correct thing to do. It is a scientific thing to do. That is why evolution today doesn't resemble evolution as Darwin presented it. Evolution has evolved, and hopefully it will continue to do so. It is my personal beleif that the design of evolution was created by God. But there is no way to test that, or prove that even to the standard that evolution has been proven. But as has been pointed out here before inteligent design does not present a theory. It presents flaws in evolution, and an admission that it is too complex for those that promote it to figure out so therefore it must come from a higher power. While that may or may not be true there are no tests that can be run to verify it, there is no data that can be collected to show that it happened a certain way, and doesn't even really present a certain way of things happening. As has been pointed out, there are links in the evolutionary chain that are known. There are examples of things such as amino acids forming on their own with out anything visibly creating them. There is evidence that supports evolutionary theory. It should be presented in science as a theory that has evolved and is still evolving, but that it is all based on evidence. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, and hasn't yet been designed to go through the tests that it would make it one. It doesn't belong in science class. I don't think this stand is too dogmatic, but I haven't been too heavily involved in this argument either.
I'm curious as to how you came to these conclusions, because to me, these statements are the complete opposite of what those of us on the side of science are saying about evolution. I've quoted talkorigins.org here before and I will again (mainly because I am a horrible writer and I find others say things much more consise and better than I can) They have a whole section addressing these observations you've made - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html any questions you might have about the evidence for macro-evolution (common decent) can be found here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Understand. I personally am not as sensitive to Genesis as I am to Jesus Christ's several references to Genesis. Jesus Christ stated things very validating to a literal Genesis as did the Apostle Paul. Jesus own words are more difinitive for me. For example in Mark 10:6 Jesus stated "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." The Greek is very clear here as to what he is saying. I give more validation to the precise words of Christ than any speculation I have heard from a scientist. "As has been pointed out, there are links in the evolutionary chain that are known. There are examples of things such as amino acids forming on their own with out anything visibly creating them. There is evidence that supports evolutionary theory. It should be presented in science as a theory that has evolved and is still evolving, but that it is all based on evidence." I appreciate your own faith and your own conclusions, but I still find that the absoluteness of evolution is more of a personal preference than scientific fact. It is circular, you must start with the belief in evolution to close up all the holes. I very much respect your opinion and belief, you may be right. I know we can't all be right. Here is my discussion- 1. There is not one proven link I am aware of or has been posted here. There is speculation based upon the assumption of evolution. But quite the opposite the lack of transition links is obvious, please consider this. 2. No amino acid ever formed even once on its own. I know about three that were formed in carefully and intelligently controlled experiments by scientists. That is like producing gasoline out of oil at a refinery and saying that given a billion years gasoline will naturally form in the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. 3. There is evidence that things naturally adapt within kind, that there is variation and adaptability with in species, and that mutations and genes occur.- But you must start with the premise that evolution is absolute to conclude from any available evidence that it is the only answer to the origins question. I used to believe in evolution (it was a personal belief, I never questioned it) Once I became a Christian I still believed in evolution. Then I started to consider the alternative. I started to question my own beliefs. I believe truth can hold up to the highest challenge and critique. I didn't even know there was ID or creation science back in 1980. I came to find the holes in evolution from my own logic and thought processes. (everyone has their own opinion) I don't have the answers locked down by any means. I believe because I believe in the Bible. I admit that it is a part of my faith. But neither do I accept the science of evolution as presented. There I have doubts.
Moe, the one thing I learned in the other 365 post ID thread was that you cannot argue rationally with someone who has chosen to be irrational. Doing so will just increase your own frustration and make your own life less pleasant. If we really faced something like The Inquisition where rational thought is actively persecuted then active measure would be warranted. But even though there are some religious/political movements that seem important out there, they really aren't that important. In the 21st century truth and learning are going to exist for those who choose it. The zealots don't control the source of information anymore. The smart kids are going to see right through any controlled education ... just like we did.
Flamingmoe, I realize this subject is tiring. I am not up to addressing this line by line and I don't think that would make any point. Actually I find it fruitless to post (IMHO) to change minds. I don't post for that reason. I post to express my opinion. Plus I enjoy the discussion. Let me just say that a creationist can make the very same arguement. As Dubious pointed out, the debate is 'irrational' when both sides are galvanized. Dubious believes he is enlightened by his own intelligence, I believe I am enlightened by God. We can't all be right. So wait and see. I've said it many times we all die and we will all find out. I am not interested in who wants to listen to what I say, I am thankful I can say it. BTW- Thousands of Christians were targeted and killed in the Inquisition, read Foxes Book of Martyrs.
Dubious didn't say that the debate is irrational, but that ID and god-belief are both irrational beliefs - that is why debating a "true believer" is an exercise in futility
I’m coming back to this thread later today, I hope, but I’m going to change my position slightly to try to weed out the aggressive attempts at misdirection that some people are resorting to, although those attempts themselves go along way to proving my point about the nature of the position many people hold w.r.t. macroevolution, namely that it is a position that is not based in good science but some motivation. For the sake of making my argument here I’ll now argue strictly from the position of someone who believes that we are not likely to be the only intelligent life in the universe and that it is quite likely that there are other life forms that are more advanced and able to travel through space, perhaps even in some of the ways we are now envisioning and developing for our future. These beings could quite conceivably have identified earth as another planet capable of sustaining life and could have traveled here to investigate, much the same way we would do and perhaps will do in a couple of hundred years. None of this is far fetched and indeed it is a logical probability. The question is, is there any evidence for this and is could such visits have influenced life on earth? And more to the point, is this a legitimate avenue of inquiry? This change doesn’t affect my position on this issue one iota, of course, but hopefully it will expose and derail those who are trying to spin this into a creationist vs. evolutionist debate. Do note however, that this is clearly what some are tying to do. I suggest that this strongly suggests that this is how they define their position on the issue. They see it principally as an opposition to creationism, and not first an foremost as a strong self-justifying scientific theory. Just for the heck of it I’ll also note that I don’t see evolution as being in contradiction with the Bible. There are many Christians who believe in macroevolution in some form and I don’t think there is any Biblical reason why they shouldn’t, although I haven’t looked at that issue in great detail. Again, my main problems with macro (vertical) evolution are twofold. It’s a weak high level theory, without much supporting evidence or logic, that is being presented as a much more robust theory than it is, and secondly its supporters often exhibit a religious zeal that causes some of them to take some very unscientific and manipulative and sometimes simply dishonest positions to try to support it. And as we’ve seen here again and again they often try to draw in creationism and use it as some kind of defence for their support of their theory. These are both very good reasons why the scientific community and the school system should take pains to maintain a healthy scepticism of it and some of its supporters whose motivations seem questionable to say the least.
secondly its supporters often exhibit a religious zeal that causes some of them to take some very unscientific and manipulative and sometimes simply dishonest positions to try to support it. There is a great deal of humor here.
Alpha, Omega - ring any bells. It's about the driving force moreso than the final results, random vs. non-random.
1- Isn't claimed by most posters that are anti-ID. 2- Isn't claimed by most posters that are anti-ID. 3- Isn't claimed by most posters that are anti-ID. 4- Isn't claimed by most posters that are anti-ID. 5- The top scientist are pretty much unified on the general theory. Specifics are debated. Top scientists agree that evolution is a strong, PLAUSIBLE, scientific theory. Do they agree that it is the truth, the answer, and the end of all questions? No, and they never claimed evolution to be. 6- There have been credible challenges, and with those challenges evolution has 'evolved', but never disproven. In fact, it's fairly easy to disprove evolution, but it has never been done. 7- Never claimed.
I'm sorry. I wasn't speaking about you. I was trying to say that you displayed an admirable trait when you explained your wonder at the world. I try and keep that alive in myself every day. I wasn't trying to make any comment about your own personal philosophy. With regard to who created the intelligent designer, that's a bit of a red herring. We have no idea what at or before the first seconds of the big bang, assuming that it even happened, and we have no theory about what happened before any of the "colliding brane" scenarios. My primary problem is that the Intelligent Design Movement is often a front for Creationism, in fact from my observations more often than not. The eve from Adam’s rib and Eden stories, for instance, are accepted by true Intelligent Design Christians as allegorical. In the past, religion has had trouble adjusting when science disproved one of its conceits, but eventually the two come together. Galileo Galilei was tortured and forced to recant by the Church because he disproved one of its own conceits when he said that the sun and the planets revolved around earth. Nobody ever asked Jesus about evolution, at least not in my bible. Why can’t evolution be god’s giant Rube Goldberg device for making humanity? The problem with Islamic terrorists is that they are trapped in the world of the 14th century. IMHO, much of the ID movement is a Creationist front trapped in the Victorian age, where philosophical logic was viewed as science.
Good point about Jesus mentioning the creation of them as male and female. I believe that as well, but it doesn't discount God using evolution to bring that about. As far as the amino acids forming on their own it was my understanding that it happened in outer space and not even in an library. I'm not sure how the links posted here would be constued as anything other than links.
Have you ever seen the undergraduate course load at Yale? I view ability to achieve in education as being the effort of study time factored by intelligence. Judging from the people I know that went to Yale, to be below average and put forth the effort required to graduate, you would have to study more than 24 hours a day. If you'll note my post I did say he probably got in on nepotism, so SAT scores are irrelevant. I'll assume you just missed that point. Oh, BTW, SAT scores are inflated as a result of the fact that they've changed the test so many times over the years. The 1994 revamp did something like triple the number of people to score 1600. Here's a story about the latest change that has some background. But, like I said getting in was all about daddy.
