A Flock of Dodos: The Evolution and Intelligent Design Circus

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]Not really, unless you are to take gravity for being a higher power. There?s no way to know, much like evolution.[/size][/quote]

[color=deeppink]When I said "in this case," I meant intelligent design vs evolution, not gravity vs the will of God.[/color]


[quote]This is entirely subjective and totally reliant upon one?s perspective of a higher power. Evolution happening without the added complication of god is simpler than evolution happening with the added complication of god. But if you alter your opinion on how all this happened (none of which is cast in stone) then you?ll reach a different conclusion. Occam?s Razor is void here, imho.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]Let me put it this way; if you were to run into the statues on Easter Island, without any prior knowledge of them, would you simply assume that they came about by random chance? Or would you assume they were built by something?

I imagine you would think the latter. You would recognize that such a pattern would not "naturally" come about, due to the complexities involved. I would agree that the simplest hyptohesis isn't "God did it!", but then again, a deity isn't the only possibility.[/color]


[quote]What evidence is intelligent design supported by? At this moment, you?re right; we have no bulletproof theory of how the universe was created. We have to settle for what the majority of the scientific community puts their weight behind, not any and every theory of creation (which would all have equal validity). If that happens, it?ll be impossible to cover the topic in a science (or religion) class.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]Fair enough, I'll certainly concede to that point.

Although I must mention irreducible complexity, like I've mentioned, is evidence that supports it. It's not 100% reliable, nor does it absolutely prove the case, but like I said, neither is the observational data regarding the big bang.[/color]


[quote]Isn?t intelligent design by its very nature outside the comprehension of science? I don?t get this point at all.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I don't see anything as outside the comprehension of science. I look at something uknown, and I refuse to say "that's unkowable!" We just need time to perfect our techniques. This includes deities.[/color]

[Break]

Surely education should cover a more varied curriculum than the 'either... or...' of Darwinism and Creationism? Both should be studied, in my opinion.

And .. Starwind is it? Are you or are you not being as narrow-minded as these "bible thumping rednecks" by completely rubbishing their side of the argument?

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Premonition;783353][COLOR="Navy"] So what? you don't think I know that? People won't fight to get math gone for good because that would be the wrong thing to do. But being forced to learn about religions you don't care about for a whole semester! I don't care about Hinduism because I'm happy being a Methodist. And if I were forced to learn about Hinduism I'd surely fight to have myself removed from that class.Why? Because it would interefere with my riligious thoughts. Having to learn about some other god for more than a unit; I'd be pissed.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]Prem, you've missed the whole point of a religion class in the first place. It isn't designed to force you to change your views, it's suppose to help you learn about others beliefs, become more tolerant, etc. Not to mention said classes can be very interesting to take. Personally I think such a class would be fun to take since there just isn't a huge exposure to other beliefs, culture and such where I live.[QUOTE=Break']Surely education should cover a more varied curriculum than the 'either... or...' of Darwinism and Creationism? Both should be studied, in my opinion.

And .. Starwind is it? Are you or are you not being as narrow-minded as these "bible thumping rednecks" by completely rubbishing their side of the argument?[/QUOTE]Agreed. In my opinion we need to stop shoving different possibilities aside just because they don't agree with what we were raised to believe and that goes for both sides, those saying as you did Starwind where you pretty much bashed the religious side, and those who are the religious ones bashing what they don't believe in.

I didn't get any of this in school until I got to college since the schools skipped over the topic completely. Which was rather pointless in my opinion. It didn't stop me from learning about it in the end. All it did was make those who tried to hide the other view or pretend it didn't exist look stupid.

[Retribution]

[size=1]Really quick; it's always a pleasure debating you, Nerdsy. Now onward!

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Let me put it this way; if you were to run into the statues on Easter Island, without any prior knowledge of them, would you simply assume that they came about by random chance? Or would you assume they were built by something?

I imagine you would think the latter. You would recognize that such a pattern would not "naturally" come about, due to the complexities involved. I would agree that the simplest hyptohesis isn't "God did it!", but then again, a deity isn't the only possibility.[/color][/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but I think it's also important to take into account that the simplest solution isn't necessarily the most valid. Just as it is simpler to say "lightening is created by god" rather than take into account the vast and complicated dynamics that go into creating a bolt... it doesn't make the simpler solution true simply because it is simpler. Then again, I haven't researched Occam's Razor, I admit.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]It's not 100% reliable, nor does it absolutely prove the case, but like I said, neither is the observational data regarding the big bang.[/color][/QUOTE]
Alright, I admit the big bang isn't solid in any respect. However if we forsake that and observe the rest of creation in search of an intelligent designer, where is your proof? There simply is nothing to back the notion aside from the idea that something this complex must have come from a higher power.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]I don't see anything as outside the comprehension of science. I look at something uknown, and I refuse to say "that's unkowable!" We just need time to perfect our techniques. This includes deities.[/color][/QUOTE]
I thought that most, if not all religion was engineered around the premise that a follower has to have faith because the higher power is unable to be seen. If this is true, science cannot touch it.[/size]

[Break]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by [b]Retribution[/b]:
[i]I thought that most, if not all religion was engineered around the premise that a follower has to have faith because the higher power is unable to be seen.[/i][/QUOTE]

Well, based on that logic, surely we must "have faith" that, for example, stars are actually made of gas, when we clearly cannot see that they are? I mean, yes we know that scientists have proven this as fact, but we, the little people, have no concrete proof that this is so. That's what a sceptic would say.

Religion is much too philosophical to be cemented to that premise. It is a shallow thing that requires one to believe in something just because it cannot be seen. I know this isn't the case, because there must be so many things that religion is "engineered" around - so many greater and confounding subjects - than the mere fact that we cannot see this "higher power". I, sadly, cannot think at the moment as to what they might be! :animeswea

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]Really quick; it's always a pleasure debating you, Nerdsy. Now onward![/size][/quote]

[color=deeppink]Back at ya.[/color]


[quote]Fair enough, but I think it's also important to take into account that the simplest solution isn't necessarily the most valid. Just as it is simpler to say "lightening is created by god" rather than take into account the vast and complicated dynamics that go into creating a bolt... it doesn't make the simpler solution true simply because it is simpler. Then again, I haven't researched Occam's Razor, I admit.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]I'll be the first to say that Occam's Razor isn't proof, but it is a valid scientific principle. It's also somewhat subjective, as opinions on what "simple" is can vary, so it's tricky. However, when trying to decide among two equally plausible hypotheses (in this case, random chance versus planned), it's currently the best way of deciding which one is true.

I must also point out that a solution isn't necessarily true just because there's a great deal of evidence pointing to it, or because there's a consensus among scientists or whatnot. Everything we know could be completely off base, but that's neither here nore there.[/color]


[quote]Alright, I admit the big bang isn't solid in any respect. However if we forsake that and observe the rest of creation in search of an intelligent designer, where is your proof? There simply is nothing to back the notion aside from the idea that something this complex must have come from a higher power.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]There's a few others. The one most rooted in science is the argument from precision (for lack of knowledge of it's real name), stating that life could not come about unless there were [i]exact[/i] conditions, which happened. There are a few more, but they're less scientific and more heavily philosophical and I'd rather not become known as "The new Mitch." Leave that role to Fasterik. : P[/color]


[quote]I thought that most, if not all religion was engineered around the premise that a follower has to have faith because the higher power is unable to be seen. If this is true, science cannot touch it.[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]And you're going to accept that without any evidence? That's not very scientific of you, Retri. ; )[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I'll be the first to say that Occam's Razor isn't proof, but it is a valid scientific principle. It's also somewhat subjective, as opinions on what "simple" is can vary, so it's tricky. However, when trying to decide among two equally plausible hypotheses (in this case, random chance versus planned), it's currently the best way of deciding which one is true.

I must also point out that a solution isn't necessarily true just because there's a great deal of evidence pointing to it, or because there's a consensus among scientists or whatnot. Everything we know could be completely off base, but that's neither here nore there.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]On Occam's Razor: I don't deny its use or validity, I'm just not sure if it's applicable in this debate. I feel like it's being used as a crutch to explain that which we do not currently understand. Again, I point to a caveman's perception of lightening as "Created by a higher power" versus our modern understanding of the very complex back story that plays into it. Occam's Razor would have us believe that lightening is created by Zeus, when this is not true.

And yes, you're absolutely right about how a great deal of evidence supporting something not making it a fact. However, it lends more credence to it than an idea based totally upon speculation.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]There's a few others. The one most rooted in science is the argument from precision (for lack of knowledge of it's real name), stating that life could not come about unless there were [i]exact[/i] conditions, which happened. There are a few more, but they're less scientific and more heavily philosophical and I'd rather not become known as "The new Mitch." Leave that role to Fasterik. : P[/color][/QUOTE]
I ask the question rhetorically, really, only to point out that intelligent really fails to deliver on a concrete level. It's an untestable theory. We will never be able to confirm nor deny it, simply because it's entirely speculative. Again, I will concede that "pure science" has yet to yield a better explanation for the creation of the universe. However, "pure science" has put forward some very reliable explanations on how our world is structured. This "pure science" is directly responsible for profound steps forward (modern medicine for example). I cannot say with certainty what intelligent design has yielded.

Maybe we're not understanding one another because I'm interpreting intelligent design to be a continuous process that guides all our actions/developments and you're using it as a term to define the initial creation of the universe?

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]And you're going to accept that without any evidence? That's not very scientific of you, Retri. ; )[/color][/QUOTE]
Divinity and science are more or less diametrically opposed by nature. The general idea is that humans have limited knowledge because we are so small compared to the higher power(s), and nothing we can do will ever begin to scratch the surface of this greater reality. :p[/size]

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppink]This is probably going to be my last post on the subject; I've sort of run out of new things to say. Also, I actually conceded defeat two posts ago, heh.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]On Occam's Razor: I don't deny its use or validity, I'm just not sure if it's applicable in this debate. I feel like it's being used as a crutch to explain that which we do not currently understand. Again, I point to a caveman's perception of lightening as "Created by a higher power" versus our modern understanding of the very complex back story that plays into it. Occam's Razor would have us believe that lightening is created by Zeus, when this is not true.[/size][/quote]

[color=deeppink]Originally I was just throwing out Occam's Razor as a small boost to my argument. The crux of my argument rests on it the complex nature of the biosphere, while saying "Oh, and it also fits Occam's Razor."[/color]

[quote]I ask the question rhetorically, really, only to point out that intelligent really fails to deliver on a concrete level. It's an untestable theory. We will never be able to confirm nor deny it, simply because it's entirely speculative. Again, I will concede that "pure science" has yet to yield a better explanation for the creation of the universe. However, "pure science" has put forward some very reliable explanations on how our world is structured. This "pure science" is directly responsible for profound steps forward (modern medicine for example). I cannot say with certainty what intelligent design has yielded.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]I really don't think it's an untestable theory; it is not unfeasible that a designer would leave behind some evidence of their work. Perhaps we have no way of testing it [i]now[/i], but I don't think it's outlandish that our abilities as a race may increase one day, and suddenly that hypothesis is testible.[/color]

[quote]Maybe we're not understanding one another because I'm interpreting intelligent design to be a continuous process that guides all our actions/developments and you're using it as a term to define the initial creation of the universe?[/quote]

[color=deeppink]I interpret inelligent design as meaning some being had a hand in our creation, whether by making us from mud or messing with our genes so we evolved a certain way.

I brought up the Big Bang theory as an example of something that is currently unverifiable and equally speculative that is still taught in mandatory classes, not because I though intelligent design meant initial creation of the universe.[/color]


[quote]Divinity and science are more or less diametrically opposed by nature. The general idea is that humans have limited knowledge because we are so small compared to the higher power(s), and nothing we can do will ever begin to scratch the surface of this greater reality. :p[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I don't really buy into that, though. Neither do some religions, actually; Buddha taught that the Hindu gods were indeed divine, but they weren't really important or "unknowable."[/color]

[Semjaza]

Intelligent design, simply, is a PC way of saying creationism. It's a way to push a religious dogma without mentioning any actual religions. Most specifically, it's a way to push a Christian agenda without actually mentioning Christianity. It's a way to attempt to wedge in a version of events because the separation of Church and state otherwise stops them in their tracks for public schools.

I mean, let's face it, Intelligent design requires a who. Whose design? Whose intelligence?

I don't even think it should be used in the same breath as other scientific theories. I don't have a problem with its existence as an idea being addressed, but you could cover the same ideals through simply stating "religions obviously have their own beliefs", but that's so understood at this point that it's not even necessary. At least in the US, I can't take two steps outside or even watch television on the weekend without being reminded about religion.

You'll notice that if someone mentions they want other "alternatives" taught to evolution, all they want is Intelligent Design to fend off Darwin's version of evolution. There's plenty of other theories out there, but none are given any credence by this group of people.

I'm not even sure why it's a debate at all.

Furthermore--and I don't mean this in any nasty way--how many threads does OB need about this subject in the course of a couple of months? Wasn't the last one about this just up on the front page recently?

[Zen]

[color=darkred][size=1]

I like to think that evolution is more of a "how" we got here rather than "why" we got here. I'm a fairly spiritual person, but I'm also Buddhist, making me a pretty athiest person for a religious guy. Personally, I think the chances of our existance being so miniscule, that there had to be something guiding us along the way to coming to where we are. I understand in the grand scheme of things that humanity has lived next to a few seconds compared to the scientifically proven age of Earth and the universe.

I'm all for evolution, I believe in it whole heartedly because, well, it's almost been completely proven. But I also believe that since humans have such a large gap between animals, that we have something on our side that pushed us to evolve into the artistic/spiritual/intellectual creatures that we are.

I don't believe in any kind of major diety, but I'm an advocate of what could equate to nature worship, I believe there is a little bit of 'God' in every natural thing that occurs and that lives on this planet. I believe in the whole 'cycle of karma' and 'wheel of reincarnation' (to a cerain degree, I don't believe in traditional Buddhist heavens or hells). I think that, like everything else about our bodies, once we die, our souls are recycled into a new life form. That just makes the most since to me. Karma in the end is basic science theory of 'action and reaction'. So even my religious views are in the end, based in a logical 'pseudoscientific' reasoning.

I believe in evolution. But I also believe that evolution was a 'guided' process if you will. Atleast, in the case of human beings.

By all means though, religion should never be considered in the education system, or atleast, it shouldn't be taught as something to be believed, but rather, something to be studied along with literature/history. And that means all religions, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. Suppressing scientific reasoning goes against all reasons to even teach science. That would be like someone not telling you that poison will kill you because it hasn't been proven that it was the poison that killed everyone else who took it. Evolution should be taught, and creationism should be left as an opinion to have. You can know that one car is better, but still choose to favor a lesser model due to preference. It's that easy.[/color][/size]

[Darren]

I'll first point off: I don't believe in God, but I don't have a biased opinion (I don't think)

Anywho, I like that show on the Discovery channel where they apply aspects from the bible and prove it with science... It amuses me. And not because I believe that it's proving the biblee wrong, but because I think it's taking aspecs of what others saw (and believed as an act of God) and giving it a rational explination. The bible wasn't written by God; just normal people who could have easily seen something and interpreted it the wrong way and then attributed it to God when they wrote a book...

On the christian aspect of things: I believe someone said it earlier, but just because an anomaly is explained through science doesn't prove that it isn't an act of god. After all, if you're a christian, then believing God made everyone as they are shows that god is actually the founder of all science as we know it. So really a scientific anomaly could actually be a sign of God.

In the sense of Evolution and the other thing, (my school calls it creation) I prefer to learn the evolution aspect, simply because it's scientifically explained. (even if it is commonly debated as the science part being guess-work, and I believe that a large portion of it is) Truth is, no one knows for certain what happened at the beginning of time (If you're a christian, then the only one who know for certain is God and all the angels/demons, etc.) and so, essentially, to teach the unsure on both aspects, christian and scientific alike, seems pointless. But since it's a requirement, I think both should be taught.

Just like students have the right to say, "One nation under God" or students have the right to bring their bible to school or pray during the moment of silence, (I don't know if all of the U.S. has that, but Oklahoma has a moment of silence every morning) they should have that choice when it comes to creation vs. evolution.
In any case, with all the laws that have been passed about forcing children to hear the theory of creation, it has rendered teachers unable to teach the christian version of that. And I know several biology teachers, who are such passionate christians, who refuse to teach evolution so we skip it entirely and go to Taxonomy and that stuff. Last year was probably the first (ever in my school days) actually learned about evolution. I was surprised, but really, I found it to be just as bogus as the christian aspect.
It's mostly theoretical and guesswork, so it's not anything that I didn't already know. It's not a big deal, but I say let the students choose! If you have a big enough school, maybe you could have one teacher teach evolution, and the other creation. Besides, I've noticed that you never see too many evolution questions on standardized tests because of all the hubbub...

Just ignore it Starwind... Don't get mad... Seriously, there's nothing you could ever do to the populations mind at large. (unless you were the antichrist, which would be a contradiction) And in the end, it's best not to condescend and let people believe what they choose to believe.

[Boo]

[size=1]I went to a slightly Christian school where I was taught about all major religions in my religion class. All taught by an atheist and a buddhist. I wouldn't care less that I wasn't extremely well informed about the evolution theory.

What are people in those American parts of the globe always making problems about? You're silly. :)[/size]

[TheShinje]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]There?s always that possibility, but as it stands, ?Intelligent Design? is a theory that attempts to explain the inexplicable. I mean, a few thousand years ago people idolized lightening and fire because ultimately, they could not understand its nature.[/size][/quote]

The only time that ligthning and fire are clsoe to idolisation in the Bible is when they are used by God to show his power, and are never set up as idols in themselves.

[quote][size=1]
Therefore labeling what we cannot grasp at the moment as evidence of ?intelligent design? is imprudent to say the least, and moreover discourages scientific inquiry. When you say that ?God did it? you are outright rejecting additional examination via scientific method. Once you say ?God did it,? it becomes an untouchable statement? sort of like when a parent tells their child ?Because I said so?. [/quote][/size]

Anything occuring through nature is God's work. It is his method of implementing these things, that we learn from the sceinces. I believe that God always had a learning curve in mind for humanity, and that he would encourage us to learn, and discover, how he designed things to work on this earth.

Take for example the water cycle. The Book of Job records that God draws up the water from the ocean. Now we know that it is through evaporation and condensation that this is achieved. Scientific discoveries are awesome in the sense that, as we advance, we come to a greater understanding of just how God works his "mysterious ways."

According to the Christian faith, we are on a path of redemption to God. It makes sense that, as we go forward on this raod, we gain the greate understandings lost to us in the fall.

Keep in midn that I'm merely speculating here, and It is not official church doctrine. ^_^


[quote] [size=1]
Or it could be a mythological tale. And if you want to base things off of fossil record, then no, humans and dinosaurs never existed concurrently. To support that argument that the authors of the Bible knew of Dinosaurs, you would have take one of two stances. 1) Dinosaurs existed concurrently with humans, or 2) these humans had divine knowledge of the past. Considering the first is almost entirely debunked by modern science, I?ll assume you mean #2. And that is a leap of faith I?m unwilling to take, that ancient humans had divine knowledge, and for some unknown reason, we don?t have that anymore.[/size][/quote]

Agree to disagree? To me, the fact that so many cultures have mytholgical stories about dragons indicates to me that such large lizards were living amongst humans. I would say that whole fire-breathing part was the exaggeration of awestruck humans, not fact.

The Chinese zodiac has a year of the dragon. This is significant because every other creature on the Chinese zodiac is an existing creature with no fantastical qualities whatsoever. Could this hint at the possibility of such a creature existing, at one point in time, concurrently with humans?

[quote][size=1]
Not necessarily. A regional flood of Mesopotamia is possible, which to Noah would be his entire known world. And a regional flood of parts of Australia I probably doubt, but again, it could be fiction.[/size][/quote]

But think about it. Various cultures across the globe have the same flood story, with a few given discrepancies. The three I mentioned all have the central theme of a righteous family and the animals being brought to safety on a boat. Cultures with no familiarity between them concoct the same flood story? It doesn't seem right to me.


[quote][size=1]
Is it valid to teach a child that gravity is a constant (i.e. it ?exists?) and also teach him that [i]others believe[/i] that god is pulling him to the earth, and that this is a possibility as well? Absolutely not. The job of public education is to teach what we know as scientific fact, not hearsay or unsupported speculation.[/size]

I agree with the idea of gravity, and I beleive that this is another example of the greater understanding of creation science gifts us. An intelligent God would create physcial laws like gravity, he'd have better things to do than hold us down on the ground all the time!

quote][size=1]
Not if one has little to no support and the other have volumes of it. Rarely is there two sides to an issue concerning science, and evolution isn?t really one of them. Of course our knowledge is finite, but to the best of that, everything points to evolution, while the notion of an intelligent designer is unsupported.[/size][/quote]

Yeah I guess. You can look at the scientific discoveries and see a creator in there, but ultimately faith in the creator is just that, and this crucial element is sceintifically impossible to prove/disprove.


[quote][size=1]
Please point me to some hard facts that support intelligent design. I mean things that have been heavily scrutinized, tested, and after the scientific process, have results that now bolster intelligent design.[/size][/quote]

I won't quote the material here, but the website carm.org does have a good resource on the creation/evolution debate that supports the creation theory, and there is even a live debate going there concerning the issue. They're better at this than I am, so I'd say it's worth your time to check out their material.

[quote][size=1]
Sorry if that was ranty/preachy at any point. I'm bored at work. :p[/size][/QUOTE]

^_^

I thought you brought up some good points there, certaintly gave me a few things to think about. I agree that there should be more than a "God said so" explanation to things Bilbical, because such cop-out answers have done little to place Christianity theory relevant to revelations made throught the sciences.

I hope at least some of that made sense!

[Retribution]

[quote name='Jeremiah']The only time that ligthning and fire are clsoe to idolisation in the Bible is when they are used by God to show his power, and are never set up as idols in themselves.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]Dude, I was referencing the Greeks and other pagan religions. It?s an example. :p

[QUOTE]Anything occuring through nature is God's work. It is his method of implementing these things, that we learn from the sceinces. I believe that God always had a learning curve in mind for humanity, and that he would encourage us to learn, and discover, how he designed things to work on this earth.[/QUOTE]
Right, well, I guess that?s your opinion of it. This is a point that cannot be debated because we?re both going off faith.

[QUOTE]Take for example the water cycle. The Book of Job records that God draws up the water from the ocean. Now we know that it is through evaporation and condensation that this is achieved. Scientific discoveries are awesome in the sense that, as we advance, we come to a greater understanding of just how God works his "mysterious ways."[/QUOTE]
I have other problems with the Book of Job, such as God condoning torture just to spite the Devil. As for the passage, please cite it. The Bible is a heavily figurative book, and I?m skeptical as to whether or not it?s talking about evaporation. I would guess it?s a coincidence, due to the thousands of other inexplicable miracles that happen, most of which defy modern science.

[QUOTE]Agree to disagree? To me, the fact that so many cultures have mytholgical stories about dragons indicates to me that such large lizards were living amongst humans. I would say that whole fire-breathing part was the exaggeration of awestruck humans, not fact.[/QUOTE]
I don?t think we?ve found fossils of large lizards that are concurrent with humans. But aside from that, almost every group of humans followed a pagan, primal religion that worshipped deities whom they thought responsible for natural phenomena. Explain the significance of that to me.

[QUOTE]The Chinese zodiac has a year of the dragon. This is significant because every other creature on the Chinese zodiac is an existing creature with no fantastical qualities whatsoever. Could this hint at the possibility of such a creature existing, at one point in time, concurrently with humans?[/QUOTE]
Hindus have an avatar that is part human, part elephant. Could this hint at the possibility of such a creature existing? No? it?s called imagination and sensationalism.

[QUOTE]But think about it. Various cultures across the globe have the same flood story, with a few given discrepancies. The three I mentioned all have the central theme of a righteous family and the animals being brought to safety on a boat. Cultures with no familiarity between them concoct the same flood story? It doesn't seem right to me.[/QUOTE]
Read my aforementioned point on paganism being more or less universal for quite a while in all corners of the globe. Does this lend credence to the idea that paganism is in fact valid, considering they never interacted with one another?

[QUOTE]Yeah I guess. You can look at the scientific discoveries and see a creator in there, but ultimately faith in the creator is just that, and this crucial element is sceintifically impossible to prove/disprove.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. Christianity is a faith because you must at some point leave behind science and trust in a higher existence.

[QUOTE]I won't quote the material here, but the website carm.org does have a good resource on the creation/evolution debate that supports the creation theory, and there is even a live debate going there concerning the issue. They're better at this than I am, so I'd say it's worth your time to check out their material.[/QUOTE]
Next question is? are their conclusions backed by any significant portion of the scientific community? I?m going to hazard a ?no?.

[QUOTE]I thought you brought up some good points there, certaintly gave me a few things to think about.[/QUOTE]
Glad to hear that. I used to be Christian but left the faith about two years ago. I?ll never say that faith is for the weak, but blind faith certainly is. As long as you question things, think critically about them, and understand what?s going on, you should be fine.[/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[SIZE="2"][SIZE="2"]This has actually been the most well behaved evolution-themed thread I?ve ever seen on the OB. I was wondering if that 3-4 month magic period before the debate rose up like a phoenix from some god-forsaken ashes. This phoenix is much prettier.

Before I add my little ditty to this conversation, I want to commend Nerdsy and Retribution in particular. While Retribution?s expertise clearly isn?t in biological sciences, he is the renaissance man who has nobly defended reason best in this thread- I believe. Nerdsy, while you will soon see that I have a different viewpoint, you have remained thoughtful throughout and very eloquently said.

That being said:
Can we first establish what the word ?theory? even means? I think people are using the word [i]way[/i] out of the scientific context it was designed for. Theories like evolution, gravity, and (yes) the big bang are systems of explaining observable ?facts?. Theories in a scientific paradigm are [u]bigger[/u] than facts, they are built upon mountains of facts (and chiseled from even more non-fact by the principle of falsafiability) to stand as the best ways for humankind to explain the natural world.

I was expecting to hear a bit more rhetoric from both sides, but little of the argument seems to be covering the theory of evolution for that matter. Maybe I haven?t been reading closely enough, but the only argument seriously opposing evolution was Nerdsy?s personal Occam?s razor. So? I?ll start with that.

Contrary to Retribution?s argument, Occam?s razor is both valid and important as a scientific principle and a sort of skeptical litmus test. If we can weed out the absurdly complex explanations for the simplest one, we are probably going to understand the natural world more accurately. The only problem with Nerdsy?s argument is that he characterizes his razor slicing between ?random chance (evolution)? and ?design (creationism/ID)?. There are two problems with his argument:

1. Evolution is [i]not[/i] random. Most (not all) mutations are random. But the driving force of evolution, namely Natural Selection, is completely non-random.

2. Occam?s razor actually favors a naturalistic explanation of the world simply because the ID/creationist point of view presupposes the existence of a ?creator? which must already be complex enough to ?design? the universe?. Even if it seems depressing, the argument that the universe simply existed (as a product of an infinite regression of ?Big Bangs? and ?Big Crunches?) on it?s own and we happen to be that lucky planet which supported life (recall, this is after billions of billions of years following the BB and billions of possible planets) is [u]a far simpler conclusion.[/u] Whether or not you believe in the naturalistic explanation is irrelevant. Occam?s razor supports it.

But Occam?s razor doesn?t make it true. That?s easy enough to admit. As rational human beings we have to examine the evidence that evolution has happened and continues to happen. I suppose if anyone has any questions, I could answer them here or debate your criticisms.. But you are welcome to find the answers in any scientific journal/textbook/non-fiction book.

As far as teaching ID in the scientific class, I think many people agree that this should be vehemently opposed. Sure, teach it in a philosophy class, debate it, history class, or (best choice) a religious studies course. But until there is a scrap of evidence to support a ?design? argument I?ll endorse science being taught in a scientific classroom.

I joined a lecture series with a few professors back when I attended graduate school about the topic of debate. We read the substantial books that ID/creationists had published in the last decade, or so. We examined their arguments, and their evidence- and as skeptics we found them wanting. The problem with the idea that evolutionists are opposed to challenges to their theory is that people don?t understand how scientists think. Scientists [i]want[/i] to break old theories and replace them with theories that they have discovered. The scientist that can verifiably demonstrate a better theory than evolution would win the Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal? etc. But we simply don?t have a need to compartmentalize a religious doctrine with observable and testable evidence. We don?t need to search the bible for a single reference for ?Leviathan? to suggest dinosaurs walked with men. We know this is absurd because if dinosaurs really existed with man, we would be mentioning them a hell of a lot more in the bible [i]and[/i] for every biblical reference suggesting this, the natural world presents millions of contrary pieces of evidence.

I suppose I?ll end this introductory post with a second lesson that I learned when debating this topic. As a former Christian (like Retribution) turned Agnostic/Skeptic and a former [i]vehement[/i] supporter in ID (go ahead and search my post history, it?s embarrassing) I was very frustrated whenever someone would repeat a point or an argument in favor of ID that has long been refuted by scientific evidence. I became irritated when I would ask the average joe, ?so why don?t you believe in evolution?? And the joe would reply, ?I don?t believe we came from a rock/I didn?t come from a monkey/There?s too many holes in evolution/it?s just a [i]theory[/i]? It took me a while to realize that, for most people, this debate doesn?t matter. Most people will go about their lives happily without having to contemplate evolution. You know what? I?m okay with that now. It took me a while. But I?m confident that the truly bright people, those inquisitive souls that will one day change this world positively will seek answers.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth'][SIZE="2"][SIZE="2"]Maybe I haven’t been reading closely enough, but the only argument seriously opposing evolution was Nerdsy’s personal Occam’s razor. So… I’ll start with that.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I'm not looking to get back into this debate, but real quick; my argument was not based off of Occam's razor, but rather the argument from complexity, where something this complex suggests a designer. Saying that, to me, it satisfies Occam's razor was just icing on the cake, so to speak.

EDIT: Unless you knew that, but didn't think it was serious enough, heh.[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]I have to admit, it amazes me that a country as religiously indoctrinated as Ireland that had the Catholic Church running most if not all of it's schools up until recent times has been teaching "God-free" to use the term, science for decades if not centuries without issue. Sure we've got it in conjunction with mandatory religious education classes which give students a broader understanding of how their faith and the faiths of others have shaped the world, but I must admit I never realised the whole "creationism vs. evolution" argument was this divided in America.

Generally I prefer to defer to science where possible to explain things that I do not understand, nothing like the Discovery Channel to make you feel like an ignoramus, and Genesis according to the Bible really does have to be taken with a good dose of salt by all but the most religiously zealous. My own take is God is real and did create the universe, but not according to Genesis which was just a way of explaining something vastly complex to a relatively simply people. Instead I prefer to think that he was responsible for the start of the universe a la the Big Bang and thus everything that came from that came from Him. To me science isn't like the dude who tells you how the magician religious guys tricks work, but the guy who makes you appreciate something vastly more complex than yourself by taking more of the mysticism out of it. [/SIZE]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I'm not looking to get back into this debate, but real quick; my argument was not based off of Occam's razor, but rather the argument from complexity, where something this complex suggests a designer. Saying that, to me, it satisfies Occam's razor was just icing on the cake, so to speak.

EDIT: Unless you knew that, but didn't think it was serious enough, heh.[/color][/QUOTE]

I must have misunderstood you, Nerdsy. I?m sorry. My reply was simply to point out that your use of Occam?s razor was incorrect.

As far as the argument for design goes, I?ve seen it before and it is quite compelling. I read Gavin?s post and think he puts the designer argument into a reasonable context. I can understand why people would assume there is a designer, or at least some ineffable ?God? out there. I think the spirit of Gavin?s post reminds me of Einstein?s contribution to ?Mein Weltbild?:

[i]You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naïve man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.[/i]
The great physicist then continues with a line of thought that I feel drawn closer too:
[i]?the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals and intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.[/i]

The idea of God appeals to me greatly. However, if there is one, he must certainly be ineffable. The best we can do as rational human beings is to understand the world in its natural contexts. We are not bound by ?naïve realism? as Bertrand Russel outlines, but we cannot refuse our own reasonable inquiry and the fruits of our experimental labor. All such inquiries have eliminated the design argument as it pertains to evolution- outright. Einstein, in reference to a designer, was likely citing the anthropic principle- and one which leads me to awe in a Deist sense as opposed to a Christian one.

Don?t let me stop you, though. I am intrigued to hear the arguments that people have for the other side, and I?m willing to be convinced. Does anyone really have an argument against the theory of evolution they are willing to submit?

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Jordan, I know we've been friends for years, but I have to say it is really quite awesome of you to compare my spiritual beliefs with those of Albert Einstein.[/SIZE]

[Identity]

Well, Im an atheist albeit not a strong one, I believe a creator COULD exist, but I'd rather go with the idea that has some science backing it up rather than the idea that just has faith backing it up. And, like Semjaza said, Intelligent design is just a way to push the Christian agenda without mentioning Christianity. It's not science, it's religious psuedoscience disguised as science, it needs to be taught in school about a much as other psuedosciences, such as Astrology, Cryptozoolology, and Alternative Medicine should be taught.