I am not a biologist, so all I can do is use my reason to evaluate what's out there. All science is not clear cut: Scientists make inferences based upon existing data, much of which is not clear to start with. Educated people make judgments to get from point A to point B. You cannot discount human nature's role in connecting the dots: To a Darwinian, those radial bones look like tetrapod digits. Skeptics like Dr. Roy Spencer do not denigrate Darwinism, but simply want more data.
Meanwhile, politicized cohorts beat their chests and hurl insults at the enemy.
Big Bang/Darwinism/Atheism/Democratic Underground
- vs -
Creationism/ID/Belief in God/Free Republic
Creationism/ID/Belief in God/Free Republic
Despite all the sturm und drang, the science is not "settled" (apologies to Al Gore). There are smart scientists of goodwill on both sides.
A final question for the belligerent Darwinists: If it's all so clear, why must you strain so hard to prove the obvious? It's still a long way from fish gills to human ears.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/the_rise_and_fall_of_tiktaalik.html
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/09/23/iconic_status_of_tiktaalik_a_hard_pill_t
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
22 comments:
There are no scientists on the creationism side of it. And if there are they must be terrible scientists for that fact.
This goes for climate change as well.
It's all so clear for scientists. Relaying that information to dims like you is what strains us.
Evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism is contentious. Evolution is not. Arguing it is like arguing whether Emerson was a great American philosopher.
"" Canadian Pragmatist said...
It's all so clear for scientists.""
And therein lies the problem. Their is no room for further exploration among people of such mindset.
SteveH
That's how it works, SteveH. Trash your opponent and dismiss them and you don't have to address your argument.
It's not an argument! No one who knows anything about biology would even consider this an issue.
How did all these different plants, animals, etc... get here?
Creationism: God's magic powers
Evolution: They evolved from earlier and more basic forms of r
Hum...
As with stimulus, global warming, etc... Americans disagree about these issues. Experts (people who know something about economics, science, etc...) don't.
"...basic forms of life.*" is what I meant to write.
You are profoundly wrong. Scientists are vigorously debating these issues. They are not settled.
There are indeed imminent scientist on both sides of the debate, and the "experts" do not agree. How simplistic.
Discounting the opposition is a weak debating tactic: Discredit the opponent and you don't have to address his argument.
Darwinists have maybe 100 pieces of a billion piece puzzle and they are cocksure they have the complete picture??
Virulent defenders of Darwinism spew contempt and hatred on all who disagree. Darwinist scientists infer much from a simple crumb found in the ground. It is an educated inference, but an inference nonetheless.
ID believers do not discount Darwinism or evolution. The educated skeptics merely say we don't have enough evidence yet.
Einstein, an atheist, believed in Intelligent Design. God haters so choke on their own bile that they fail to realize that ID has nothing to do with religion.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/01/01/part_four_einstein_s_god_and_antony_flew
This isn't a street fight though. There are intelligent people on both sides (although those on my side vastly out-number those on yours).
But when it comes to raising valid points of criticism, such vague term such as 'skepticism' and generic phrases like "100 pieces of a billion piece puzzle" or basically any other 'argument' you brought forward are not 'real' arguments.
They may be persuasive and they may change peoples minds, but they have no substance. The arguments you use to justify your beleif in ID (and your skepticism regarding evolution, specifically Darwinism) could just as easily be applied to skepticism regarding the events of 9/11.
Your idea of skepticism is the same as a person who just finished their first critical thinking or scientific reasoning course. They leave those courses not believing what they read in Berkleys medical journals.
Plus your skepticism isn't equally dealt out. You're skeptical about "The Origin of Species" and the tested truths contained inside of it, but not so much about the Bible and its lack of testing.
I can't argue with conservative talking points, and clever propagandist techniques either.
Find me a fossil that doesn't support the theory of evolution and then we can talk.
You might be right! There might be a god, climate change might be a hoax, and evolution might be a myth; but until you find a pieces of solid evidence pointing in the direction opposed to mine... how can I or anyone else with half a brain debate you?
It's especialy pointless because you've obviously already made your mind up.
The articles you give me links to are full of exactly the same substanceless dribble.
These are issues of science (including god). You debunk some of the substanceless political talking points on the other side of the issue, but you don't face the 'real' scientific arguments that lead most intelligent people to one conclusion versus another.
The greatest anecdotal evidence for evolution is just the vast array of different, and yet in many ways similar species of plant and animals life.
Why would god make so many birds that look so alike except for their beak sizes and their tail lengths, etc...
It's incomprehensible without evolution. Why would god make animals that live for one day, mate and die right after mating.
There are just so many of these blatantly unexplainable questions that evolution 'miraculously' offers a pretty decent explanation for.
You're lucky this isn't a street fight. I've been in plenty. And for the record, I don't think fighting solves anything more than who is the better fighter.
Who can plumb God's mind? I don't know why he did what he did.
Yah, you can't explain the origin of such variation in species. Darwin basically could. If not Darwin than some other evolutionary biologist.
Point is, there are no intelligent design biologists. If there are they're problably not very good scientists.
So where did the basic forms come from? Oh yeah that's right, they bubbled up out of the mud.
Seriously CP... denial is not a rational form of argument.
The argument is not about natural selection or evolution, all easily demonstrated in a laboratory environment... think Gregor Mendel and his peas and fruit flies. Who I might also point out was a Roman Catholic Priest. All evolutionary natural selection proves is that the species were created to be adaptable to a changing environment. It is still a long stretch of road from organic goo to the self-aware beings debating this point.
Me? I never had a problem with Darwin, I have a problem with people who make just as great a leap of faith as I do and think that for some reason their assumptions are more valid than mine.
Nor do I advocate teaching creationism in the science lab, although I heartily encourage the teaching of philosophy and comparative theology, the lack of which seem to be a great shortfall in our educational system. We tend to produce more people who can recite than people who can think. The entire point of scientific inquiry is questioning, formulating hypothesis to account for the evidence present, and adjusting that hypothesis in the face of additional evidence. Blind acceptance is not, nor has it ever been (until relatively recently) a function of a rational, analytical, and educated mind.
Question, think, don't spout.
Cheers
"Question, think don't spout"
Uh, I'm sorry. Lets address the god issue. I don't consider it necessary to be an atheist to accept the basic tenants of evolution, but I do Christianity as entirely opposed to the theory.
Bible: book 1 chapters 1 and 2.
6 days may have meant 14 billion years, and it could all just be a metaphor, but it's HIGHLY unlikely. What's more likely is that along with Gilgamesh and all the other old stories of the origins of life on earth were just that: stories. We have a real tangible explanation not going back all the way, but neither does the Bible go back all the way.
God seems to already be about with no explanation at all in the Bible.
Denial of what? I'm serious when I say that I have no good argument to rebuke.
Taking skeptical thinking to hypocritical extremes with one thing and completely disregarding it with another is not an arugment that needs to be rebuked!
And furthermore, all you praise of science as all about experimentation, doubt, etc... does not do a thing in advancing your claim that god used his magic powers to create the universe.
One can claim that God created the universe or one can claim that the universe in it's entirety sprang completely out of nothingness (poof).
Now... which theory is more plausible? Neither. Neither assertation can be proven or disproven. "Your" science can not explain the origins of the universe. Big Bang? Okay, explain to me Big Bang - 1 hour... you can't. So... in essence your belief system is based as much on faith as any other belief system.
Again, with the utmost arrogance you presume your beliefs to be more valid than anybody elses... without one shred of proof.
I, as I have repeatedly stated, am neither a fundamentalist or a literalist, and that is in accord with my religion. You on the other hand are a fundamentalist and a literalist, because you can do nothing more than regurgitate other peoples work and theories.
I am not the one claiming to have all the answers, and never once have I assaulted your beliefs with such arrogant statements as "used his magic powers to create the universe". Yet you assert that the entire universe and everything in it magically exploded out of nothing, which is on par with the statement that I farted, it smelled like roses, and little pink pigs flew out of my ass and out the window. Which is as plausible as poof! The universe exploded out of absolutely nothing.
It would seem that I am not taking my thinking any closer to a hypothetical extreme than you are.
This is what Silverfiddle is saying when he says that people are turning "Darwinism" into a religion, both belief systems require a remarkable leap of faith and abandonment of logical thought. Because until you can explain "origin", your philosophy is no more scientifically valid than mine.
You falsely believe that religion lives or dies by the creation story, and miss the point entirely. Not being a creationist or a literalist, the Bible as teaching stories, or parables, does not assault the foundations of my belief, and if you do your research you would find that such methodology fits perfectly into the historical context in which it was written. That the authors of the various books of the Bible were inspired to write, the fact that they wrote it in a style common to the time is not surprising.
The difference between our two positions, is that I can respect yours, and all you can do to advance your argument is call people names and make ridiculous assertations such as "there are no intelligent design biologists, and if there are they are probably not good scientists". Not good scientists? Based on whose criteria? Yours?
It seems a common theme in your writing... something you don't agree with? Words uttered by fools, delusionists, idiots. The person is a PhD? Irrelevant, they are obviously sub-par. When confronted by logical flaws in your argument you, rather than attempt a rational and intellectual defense of your position, simply lash out like a frustrated child.
You Never heard of Freidrich Hayek? Well that completely and utterly invalidates my assertation that he was a leading conservative intellectual. Screw the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winner... he's just some dumbass schmuck who succumbed to the foolish propaganda of the Republican Party.
Got news for yah! The world doesn't revolve around you, what you know, or who you've heard of. Until you get beyond that, you won't learn anything.
I didn't claim to know how the Universe came into being (out of nothing or otherwise).
I have made no assertion of the like to need proving. You have the burden of proof because you claim to know how the Universe came into being, but upon further inspection it becomes clear that even your explanation itself needs again another explanation.
As far as taking thing literally or not. I don't really care. It just seems like people took that story pretty literally up until the turn of the century before last. That this was about the same time Darwin started being taken seriously... I don't know. it just seems fishy.
I'm not trying to be childish here. There are positions, philosophical, theological, moral, political, etc... that cannot and should not be taken seriously. Naziism is one of them, but because of the negative action that people with that belief engage in, it's good to set them straight.
I was trying to set Silverfiddle straight about ID. I'm trying to set you straight abou your more nuances belief if god as well.
It's not that big a deal though. Just stop encouraging people to hate homosexuals, and treat women with the same respect you don't think they completely deserve, and we'll call it a day.
You respect women? Why aren't there any female bishops, popes, cardinals, etc...?
Don't hate gays? Why don't you want them to have the same marital rights as everyone else?
"Just stop encouraging people to hate homosexuals, and treat women with the same respect you don't think they completely deserve, and we'll call it a day.
You respect women? Why aren't there any female bishops, popes, cardinals, etc...?
Don't hate gays? Why don't you want them to have the same marital rights as everyone else?"
Illogical nonsense. A non-sequitur wrapped in an emotional appeal.
The Catholic Church doesn't allow married men to be priests, Bishops, etc. Does that mean they disrespect married men?
Quite a stretch, equating standing by a definition of marriage that has lasted millennia with hatred. A father can't marry his son either. Is that hatred?
A weak effort, Bahram. Are you feeling under the weather today?
Equating incest with a gay relationship isn't hateful?
Also... hello. If married men can't be preists than neither should married women be allowed. I'm talking about the unmarried, divinity school graduates who want nothing more than to preach the word of...
And mine are non-sequiturs?
Whether you are born with female parts or male parts is not a choice. Marriage is. That's a complete and utter false dichotomy.
Same goes for the marriage thing as well. Also, I'm not against relatives being allowed to marry eachother. As long as their both past the age of consent I don't see what why their relationship would bother me.
And you're the libertarian?!
This is another problem I have with the left. Your liberal redefinition of words and concepts. Not redefining the word marriage is hatred? Then what is it when someone harms another?
Stay within the defined use of words, don't exaggerate, and your argument is reduced to what it is: piffle.
Marriage has already been redefined! It used to be an exchange of property. It used to be pluralistic, etc...
Marriage as between only one man and one women of a certain age is a narrow cultural definition not even today shared by all western cultures, e.g. mormons.
Frankly, I could give a shit what the definition of marriage is so long as people aren't able to take advantage of it for getting their immigration papers through, etc... and other forms of fraud.
If two being who are capable of consenting to marriage agree that they want to get married, I don't see the problem.
beings*
"Frankly, I could give a shit what the definition of marriage is so long as people aren't able to take advantage of it for getting their immigration papers through, etc... and other forms of fraud.
Why not?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.