Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[knowltok3]

Oh, I like this guy. You've got to stick around.

I would question one part of what you were saying though. The part about it being random, or planned. Genetic defects could be said to be evidence of randomness that nature weeds out through competition. If genetics and evolution are God's program, how do we explain what appear to be errors in it?

 

[sumociv]

I'm not a geneticist, I just try to understand their arguments. Steve Jones would definitly argue that evolution is totally independent of any composing by any type of creator. In fact he rebuts creationists on this exact point and shows that there are in fact errors, ergo there was no creation by their pre-enlightened concept of an immutable God that they are stuck on.
I however am struck by the miracle of the process of natural selection. That somehow the imperfection of the genetic code over time produces almost an inconceivable variety of unique life forms. You can not look at nature and not be overwhelmed with awe. I am amazed by things like the fact that individual trees announce insect infestations to other trees via phermones, or a bat's echo-location or even the newly discovered microbes that injest nitrogen and excrete gold.
My question for the atheist is: If you are uplifted by these and so many other examples of the intricacies of life and you believe that it came about by evolution; can you then ascribe the authorshio of the process of evolution to mere chance? If that is compelling for you then I surely respect your honestly held beliefs, but to me that is not in the least bit compelling.
If evolution was a naturally occuring process like continental drift, glaciation or even something like star formation, I would expect it to produce a great variety of simple and similar organisms but no incredibly complex ones. How and especially WHY does conscienceness result from random molecules mixing? How and especially WHY do humans emerge from a code of molecules.
Its hard to draw analogies like this one, because I can't think of any other example of a natural system with anywhere near the apparent complexity of genetics. But then I am only a struggling phone salesman.

 

[omichyron]

I just wanted to say that sumociv's viewpoint is similar to mine. I don't see how evolution rules out a God's existance or even his concern in the continued state of the world. (Don't count on me sticking around for the almost inevitable arguement, though. I might be back, but I have recently been quite busy.)

 

[CrayonX]

Sumociv, I am also a Christian and also somewhat lean towards your POV. The marvels discovered via genetics is often neglected in these discussions. I saw Darwin's Ghost in the bookstore, I think I'm going to pick it up.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Evolutionists, in their turn, take this work, based on the notion that they are right, and use it to 'prove' that they are right. Why has no one called them on this? Well, they've got such a large following now, they can make a big noise at anyone who tries.

Now replace "Evolutionists" with "Creationists" and replace "work" with "bible" and it makes even better sense than it did. Anyone with any comment on my earlier point or just more bizare insults?

 

[Super Mutant]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I challenge any religious zealots out there to step up and present us all with the theory how thier "god" created us...

In a serious manner, no psalms please, and no quotes from some religious book.

I want someone to explain the adam & eve story with scinece.

Then tell us all why evolution theory is invalid.

We're waiting....

I play Civ, therefor i exsist.

 

[knowltok3]

Well, I certainly subscribe to the notion that evolution does not rule out the existance of a God. I also am wonderstuck by the vast array of life and nature around me. However, in looking at it I am not fully convinced that a God created it. I do figure that if He did, it was by lighting a match to the evolutionary fuse, not by hand placing each bit of debris. So I don't buy into the notion of creationism that says that everything popped into existance according to God's will exactly as we see it today.

Given what I observe in nature, I'm not at all sure that such a God (if He exists) is automatically benevolent and concerned with individual's actions. First, I figure that if there is a God, we have no way of discerning His motives. It would be like an ant in an ant farm trying to figure out what makes ten year old Timmy tick. It is not even certain that Timmy knows, the ant hasn't a chance. I find the chance that we are the playthings of a celestial child about as convincing as that a super being is paying attention to our every action to see whether we will do good or evil. Either way (or any of 1,000's of possible explanations) is just an attempt to put a human frame of reference on something that by Its very nature is not human.

Well, let's see what response we get to the Timmy and the Ant Farm Theory.

 

[sumociv]

Christianity is about faith not proof. I can not prove that there is a God to you. I believe that its my role in this discussion not to convert you, but to convince you that my beliefs are not unreasonable. Particularly in the context of this evolution vs. creation thread. Evolution has been the vanguard of the secular attack upon Christianity in America for the last 80 years. The issue has been cast as. "Either evolution is true and God does not exist ". We were given an "other" in the poll which is why I felt compelled to post.

I fully agree with your statement, "I do figure that if He did, it was by lighting a match to the evolutionary fuse, not by hand placing each bit of debris. So I don't buy into the notion of creationism that says that everything popped into existance according to God's will exactly as we see it today."

Congradulations you may be a theist!
The first question to answer is "Does God exist". I believe that the fact that anything exists posits a creator since nothing in our universe exist on its own.

Your next question, "Given what I observe in nature, I'm not at all sure that such a God (if He exists) is automatically benevolent and concerned with individual's actions" is a subsequent one if you agree that a God does exist. I understand your reservations here.

I believe that God is personal and cares about us because evolution produced humans with both conscienceness and apparently a need to search for God. If God didn't care about us as humans, then why light a match to a process that miraculously leads to us. Again I don't find it compelling to believe that we are accidents. If we are an accident then I find it more compelling to believe that evolution is totally chance without any divine guidance. The least compelling notion to me is that an intelligent creator created something and then didn't care what it produced. Hasn't deism been dead for about 200 years?

To put this within your Timmy and the Ant Farm analogy:
The ants often wondered whence they came and how their food seemed to magically appear at the top of their tunnels everyday. There were many opinions among the ants. One colony of thought called the Myrmecothropical Colony was that the divine ant creator cared about them and created their tunnels, fed them and took care of all their needs. Other perhaps more practical ants posited that this beliefe was just a crutch that weak minded ants created out of their ignorance. If only this Ant Creator would reveal himself to them, they would then believe....


which leads us to the next logical question, if you agree that 1) God probably exists and 2) He is personal and cares about his creation, is "Did God or does God reveal himself to us. This is where we will get an incredible divergence of opinion, which is probably better dealt with in another thread. My personal opinion is that God did reveal himself to ancient Israel in the Sinai event and this is the foundation of my Christianity.

All of this is my personal reasons why I believe. It is not meant to convince you or anyone else. Ultimatly it all comes down to faith and what you choose to put your faith in. I think that God set it up that way. If we could ever move past faith to absolute knowledge of God then we would also move past the necessity of seeking for him, which is the whole point of life!

Interested in your reply.....

 

[Maj]

it all comes down to faith and what you choose to put your faith in

From my experiences, seems more as though faith chooses you, not the other way around. But hey, that's my belief

- Maj

 

[sumociv]

Maj, could you clarify? I think I'm missing your point.
thanks,
Sumociv

 

[knowltok3]

I'll freely admit that noone can prove God, and that the lack of proff does not deny existance. On this point I will suspend the question since it is in essence unanswerable (at least from our current standpoint). Therefore I will work under the assumption that there is a God of some type - even though i am not convinced - so that I can get to a more interesting point in the discussion:

I believe that God is personal and cares about us because evolution produced humans with both conscienceness and apparently a need to search for God. If God didn't care about us as humans, then why light a match to a process that miraculously leads to us. Again I don't find it compelling to believe that we are accidents. If we are an accident then I find it more compelling to believe that evolution is totally chance without any divine guidance. The least compelling notion to me is that an intelligent creator created something and then didn't care what it produced. Hasn't deism been dead for about 200 years?

I don't neccesarily believe that we are accidents, but whose to say we aren't just some type of computer game? Thus we are created with certain mental aspects and needs that will define our actions. This in turn causes us to interact in certain ways. This may be entertaining on some level to a Diety. I know this is far fetched, but to me, so is any attempt at a rational for what a super-potent, all-knowing entity is or is not concerned with.

Perhaps God exists, cares about us and at one point actively ineracted with us (Flood, Red Sea, etc.) but has been called away to dinner and forget to hit pause.


I really am not trying at all to mock, these are serious thoughts to me, and I am enjoying the discussion. My point is that I don't think we can determine what God's motives are, and I don't see much around me to convince me that one of those motives is caring.

One of my friends asks the question: If there's a God, why are there Pedophiles? At first you laugh because it catches you off guard and he is a funny guy, but then later you think about it, and you ask yourself the question seriously. I believe that pedophiles are internally broken. There is just something wrong with their "wiring" so to speak. If this is the case, how can a creator with the power to correct these aberations be considered caring?

Oce again, I am loving the discussion, and now I look forward to your response. Thanks

 

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I challenge any religious zealots out there to step up and present us all with the theory how thier "god" created us...

In a serious manner, no psalms please, and no quotes from some religious book.

I want someone to explain the adam & eve story with scinece.

Then tell us all why evolution theory is invalid.

We're waiting....

Ok, you asked for it!

I guess you could say I believe in "Theistic Evolution", that God created the universes and evolved the planets and the life on them. The reason God does it this way is so that he can expand his own experience of his creation.
The story of Adam and Eve as it is told in the bible is pure fiction. Adam and Eve were celestial beings who came to our planet to biologically uplift the races. They were the second revelation of God to man.
Once a planet has evolved creatures capable of making moral decisions God will periodically send revelations of himself so that our concept of God can evolve.
Jesus Christ was the fourth revelation. He was not sent to appease an angry God with a blood sacrifice, he came to reveal God's love to mankind.
The evolution theory is not invalid, but there are a few things wrong with Darwin's theory. For example, new species do not slowly evolve, they appear suddenly. That is why there are so many "gaps" in the fossil record.

 

[a_disciple]

Just a small comment. You need more faith to believe in evolution then to believe that God created the universe.

 

[sumociv]

knowltok3: These are all good objections.

I find it compelling (although I believe this point is unprovable) that God does care about us, for the following reasons:

"We care about God". Every single culture on earth developed some type of belief in a divine being. We apparently are hard-wired to believe in God. (read michael shermer's book "How we believe" he calls this the human pattern recognition instinct - our brains see patterns where there are none i.e. clouds, pictures of the virgin mary in oil stains on a u-haul building in Florida etc. therefore God is simply the ultimate pattern that humans see in what is really randomness.) But, if you accept that God had a hand in our creation (unlike shermer who is agnostic), than why would he create us with such a need to know him and then not care if we found him or to put it in your terms "just hit pause and go get dinner". To me, what you posit is a nonsensical notion of God, a kind of cruel mad-scientist theology who assigns us a clear purpose and then doesn't care if we reach it.

In fact, that is very similar to the belief system that Jewish monotheism surplanted (that we are at the mercy of the gods whim) and the advantages of monotheism is a frequent theme in Genesis. For example, the story of the flood is based on the ancient Sumerian story of Gilgamesh. In fact in some cases the author of Genesis copied whole sentences of the Gilgamesh epic (which was one of the most popular ancient stories of the levant). However, the author recasts the story with YAHWEH, his monotheistic God. You can imagine the reason he told the story. His audience accepts that there was an ancient flood, but now they are being told that there is only one God and that he is the author of a strict moral code which they are supposed to follow.

So whereas in the Gilgamesh flood story, there is no reason for the flood (the gods basically just decided to destroy! (even worse than your analogy...these gods weren't just bored with humanity they apparently just did random acts of cruelty)In the Genesis account the motive for God's punishment for man's wickedness. This may not seem right to you, but that is besides the point....it is a theological revolution that God is just and frames his actions with humanity within his covenant (a legal institution that they fully understood back then).

Jewish monotheism replaced an system where you sacrificed and hoped that God didn't just wipe you out from indifference with a God who created humans in his image and then activly engaged them throughout their lives and their society.

Now before you say "That flood story isn;t any better because what kind of God would kill all of humanity (including innocent shildren and fetusii, and all but 2 of every animal)". Take the next step - the flood never happened and God never destroyed the whole earth. The flood story in Genesis was told by an author and told to an audience that knew that the flood happened and was asking why their God would do something like that. The author basically succeded in bringing a higher theological interpretation than the belief system that he was trying to surplant.

I know this seems like a tangent (although I think an interesting one) but my point is that supposition that God might have created us without any obligation to us is not a new one. Judasim and later Christianity are vastly more compelling belief systems than the ones they replaced. Doesn't that perhaps represent an advancement towards a better undestanding of the creator as the result of God nudging his people towards him through some kind of revelation, direct or indirect.

I won't get into your valid objection "if god exist then why does evil exist", except to ask you which system of belief has a better answer for the problem of evil.

Christianity would state that God gives us free will and allows us to do evil. Christianity does not say that everyone has the same capacity for good....your concept of "universal brokenness" originated in the judeo-christian tradition. Every human is broken, not all in the same ways (like a tray of fine vases which falls to the ground - every one of them breaks differently). Yet God doesn't simply reject us or ignore out brokenness, he offers us forgivness and offers to rebuild us as a "new creation".

The secular schhol of evolutionist thought would explain your evil doers as simply results of genetic errors or chemical inbalances. It offers no way to correct, blame or give hope to the broken. It neither lifts man higher out of the slime nor does it add anything to its adherants except the depressing self-realization that life basically sucks on the evolutionary tree.

I tend towards the former, because not only do I hope it is true, but I understand the consequences of the alternative. Even atheists have morals and will call the police if you stab them or rob from them. They find their beliefs convenient when they want to reject some abstract notion that they don't like (such as the existence of God) but if they are wronged, they suddenly act like there is a moral code and that natural selection is only for their genes.

 

[Sixchan]

I hope it stays like this. Now it's all a calm discussion with no-one calling each other wrong, or talking rubbish etc.

I believe that IF god exists, rather than not caring, or having a purpose, he made a universe and wanted to see how it would its inhabitants would evolve.
He set it so that intelligence would crop up eventually but didn't say what it would do or how it would look.
He set the intelligence to believe in him, but not to know of him, so they would try to develop and learn rather than worship him 24/7 and not become anything.
Next, he wanted to see how we would react to disasters, floods, famines, as they would only make us stronger.
But I believe he isn't omnipresent nor omniscient as then he wouldn't have to do this as he'd know what happens.

If he isn't ommnipresent, mabye he's watching another race on another planet. There's a lot of universe to look at out there.

I do not believe that god is benevolent. I think of him more as a neutral creator and a watcher. He just looks at what is going on, he doesn't interfere. The evil in the world will drive US to progress our intelligence and desroy the evil in our hearts. No theist, atheist etc. is at a mental level to do so.

It must get lonely up there. Mabye his goal for us is to become so intelligent that man and god can one day speak as equals.

These are just some ideas I have flying round my head. This one seems to explain it all best for me.

 

[sumociv]

I must say that there is nothing in your statement that I can really disagree with. It sounds like you've really pondered the question and tried to come up with a reasonable and consistant theology. I would I guess argue with one thing,

"Next, he wanted to see how we would react to disasters, floods, famines, as they would only make us stronger.
But I believe he isn't omnipresent nor omniscient as then he wouldn't have to do this as he'd know what happens."

I think that man's free will and God's omnisciece are not mutually exclusive. He may know what's going to happen but still leave it up to us to do, just as I know when my 2 year old daughter will crayon on the wall, but my knowing doesn't mean I'm responsible for her action. (maybe that's not quite a perfect analogy but I hope you see my point.)

A question more on the topic on this thread though:
Do you think that evolution is actually proof that a designer exists is there any validity in the atheist's assertion that it disproves God?

 

[Sixchan]

I think that man's free will and God's omnisciece are not mutually exclusive. He may know what's going to happen but still leave it up to us to do, just as I know when my 2 year old daughter will crayon on the wall, but my knowing doesn't mean I'm responsible for her action. (maybe that's not quite a perfect analogy but I hope you see my point.)

I see your point, but I think that if god doesnt have omniscience or omnipresence then it gives a much better answer to the question of 'why does evil exist'.

A question more on the topic on this thread though:
Do you think that evolution is actually proof that a designer exists is there any validity in the atheist's assertion that it disproves God?

I don't believe it proves god's existence, nor do I believe it proves god's non-existence. The bible says god created the world through creation, blah blah blah, but if evolution is correct, all it proves is that the bible was written by man, and therefore is bound to have flaws, not that god doesn't exist.

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I hope it stays like this. Now it's all a calm discussion with no-one calling each other wrong, or talking rubbish etc.

But then it's no fun. (joking)

However, you are quiet correct that the theory of evolution cannot prove or disprove the existense of God. That is more of a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

P.S. Someone commented earlier that evolution had a problem because it is not gradual. That is true in the case of Darwin's theory, which is incorrect. However the modern theory (at least in my bio book) now states that evolution mostly works in spurts, at times of crisis that bring on more selection pressures.

 

[knowltok3]

I'm with the rest of you that evolution cannot disprove the existance of God. In fact it amazes me that the theory raizes the hackles of so many religious people. Not everything the church (any of them) has said throughout history has been 100% accurate. Why become so upset just because we are going through another Galileo saying that the earth isn't the center of things?

I actually think I can answer this. Most people are by their very nature, amazingly insecure. They need answers and they need something that keeps away the terrifying thought that maybe there isn't some higher purpose. So when you attack even a small part of their belief system it scares the willies out of them because you are chipping away at the thing that makes their entire existance work.

This insecurity to me explains why monotheism replaced polytheism. Someone made up a better story. One that made people feel more secure. Give them a little more security and they will follow you anywhere. Along the way, if you can set yourself up as the intermediary between the Almighty and the unwashed masses, you can get society to live like you want and to give you power.

This is more my arguement against religious institutions than an arguement against the existance of God. When it comes to God I figure it like this:

Either He exists or doesn't. If he doesn't, then I'm on my own, responsible only to my own concience that has been built up through my life experience to make me act in a generally "good" way. I will try to pass along these same "morals" to my children, and expect the people I interact with to at least to some degree go along with them (I don't have any friends who knock over liquer stores or kick dogs (As far as I am aware, which is my point)). On the other hand, If he does exist, He is not the active and concerned God that makes many church-goers feel safe and good about themselves. Exactly what his nature is I have no hope of truely fathoming. I don't beleive anyone can. Ultimately I will live my life the same and do the same things. If there is an afterlife (may not be even if there is a God) I'll go where I go and accept what I get (As long as it's not eternal damnation for eating a porkchop on Friday and washing it down with a beer ).

As far as the whole broken thing goes, The broken that I am refering to is those that are truely messed up. The pedophiles, serial killers, etc. The rest of us may have some "evil" in us, but that is not neccessarily hardwired and redemption can come without the intercesion of God. By redemption I merely mean a return to a path that society considers good. This of course varies by culture too. We humans have an amazing ability to convince ourselves that something is justified and okay if we want to. We can also do the reverse. Making things that were once fine taboo.

Time for dinner with the wife and the mother-in-law <---proof that I am meant to suffer

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Vrylakas


Glad to see you have respect for those who disagree with you Fearless. I'm a married man in the midst of a busy career so my free time is limited; you will often see large gaps between my posts. My apologies if it takes a couple days for me to get back to you. Since you hadn't answered any of three follow-ups posts, I assumed you never would.

Sorry, but I too am a busy man. I guess we'll just have to allow a grace period between posts. Acceptable?

Originally posted by Vrylakas
You have made a statement that requires clarification and evidence. The "blatantly untrue" requires this evidence. (Please note I am ignoring your condescending tone.)

Sorry, about the tone, but admit it or not, I'm at least partially entitled to it. I've shot gaping holes in the theory, that no one has even tried to stick a finger in, let alone actually patch. A short list:
Mutations mostly harmful, bred out in two to three generations.
Natural Selections extincts existing varieties, creates nothing new.
Peer review as used by paleobiologists is sheerest fraud.

Other than strident denial, no answers to these challenges have been made.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Yes, clearly we do differ. Glad to see you've found some meaning in your life, Fearless. I hope you aren't presuming to know what my religious leanings may be, as I haven't stated them in this forum. That actually wouldn't really have an impact on our topic in any reasonable discussion anyway.

Actually, you're right, I'm not presuming to know your religious background, and understand that any comments I have directed at Catholicism were not aimed at any particular Catholic, but rather at an organization that I find abhorrent in its bloodguilt and dishonesty. I don't want to begin a flame war on religion, but let's just leave it at I hold absolutely no value whatsoever in the entire Catholic world. I have my reasons, and most Catholics would either be insulted to hear them, shocked, or just assume that I was a lying doodyhead.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
As for my vocation, I spent a decade training as a historian, and currently work as the head of the North American research efforts for a fixed-income research firm. My education, which spans two continents, did indeed include a very sound grounding in the Sciences.

Do you means Sciences as in Evolutionism and Geology, or Sciences as in all branches, which would be spelled sciences, by me.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Observation of speciation doesn't have to happen in front of your eyes. In fact, given the amount of time it takes for species to reach that point whereby they can no longer interbreed successfully - you are not going to see it happen in a single species right before your eyes. This is where the fossil record comes into play. It isn't simply a matter of scientists saying "Gosh, these two fossil samples sure do look alike. Must be derived from the same animal!" It's tracing specific characteristics that show up in the fossil record that can be definitively traced through species as they develop; things like reticulating spines (vertibraes), inter-locking molars, short-based balanced skulls in fully bipedal animals, etc.

Are you suggesting that traits migrate from species to species horizontally? This sounds like madness. I must be reading you wrong...

Originally posted by Vrylakas
If your measure of verifiable data is limited to a single human's visual life, well that undermines all human efforts at learning just about anything about anything. It also reveals a deep misunderstanding of how science works.

Um, I understand perfectly how science works. It's Science that I'm not buying.

Originally posted by Vrylakas


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
I'm not sure what your point is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that evolution is just an athiest's version of ignorant superstition. A story to push back the darkness. Nothing more, nothing less. Only instead of dressing it up in the trappings of religious ceremony and pageantry, it is dressed up in peer review.

Actually, in my academic career I met many scientists who were also devotedly religious (in their many faiths). That's really one of my main points, that you insist on believing the whole argument is between "Believers" and "Non-Believers"; but that's really irrelevant. I'm afraid Evolution is not an Atheist conspiracy. It is a free-standing theory created by scientists that has withstood 150 years of constant experimentation and review. Do you understand what peer review is? It's not a ceremony or a rite, but rather a professional critique of any given study or work, based on available resources and the researcher's original notes. The point is to force researchers' work to meet strict professional standards.

Peer review is two different things to two different groups. I've explained this before. Legitimate peer review takes the form of following the steps one researchers has taken, to see if his experimental data can be obtained by anyone working under the same conditions as he was, to verify the research that he has done. Isaac Newton publishes a paper describing the effects of motion, and ascribes these effects to what he calls the Laws of Motion. Other scientists, dubious at first, perform the same experiments that he performed, take the same measurements, and get the same results. His work is validated, and a new age of thought begins.
The peer review done by Science takes an entirely different form. a Scientist, to underpin the ToE, examines bones, observes similar animals, and draws a few conclusions. He then publishes his findings. Another Scientist looks at the same group of data, draws similar conclusions, and publishes a paper that agrees with the first. Neither performs an experiment, neither does anything more that rubberneck at an accident scene, and give the same eyewitness testimony. Both get a fat check from a university or research grant fund. Kind of like two witnesses at a Mafia hitman's trial saing that he didn't do it, and getting a fat stack of green from a don for their performances.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
You missed my point entirely. Variation is the route to speciation. Variation and Natural Selection are inseparable components of Evolution. In your original statement you said "Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not." - which is ridiculous. That's like saying I admit I pulled the trigger of the gun that was pointed at this person's head, killing them, but I did not commit murder." (Pardon the example.)

I pretty much have to, because it just doesn't work. You might not have known the gun was loaded, and it may have been an accident. Hell, the victim could have been obscured by something, making you totally unaware of his presence along the bullet's ballistic trajectory.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Variation is a part of Natural Selection,

Variation does not produce new species, it only cosmetically alters existing ones. Natural Selection causes extinction of species that cannot adapt to changing conditions. The last mass extinction of SPECIES occured millions of years ago, with a big asteroid. Just recently, the Flood wiped out a whole lot of VARIATIONS. Big difference. The first was a terraforming project done by God, the second was divine retribution.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
and Natural Selection is the engine for Evolution. That, in a nutshell, is how Evolution works.

So Evolution, the process that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of life on earth, is powered by the primary force of extinction? I'm sorry, but I see a failure of logic here.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Have you ever actually read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, or any professional text related to Evolution? I ask because I'm getting the distinct impression you don't really understand how Evolution works, rather that you're tossing around some common catch-phrases. If so, how can you purport to refute something you don't understand?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason I don't understand evolution is because it doesn't make any sense to my logical mind?

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Once again you've misunderstood me. I did not intend to personify Evolution, as again this is not a religion. When I wrote "Evolution as a process does not attempt..." above, I am refering to Evolution as a body of work composed of all the research and work done by scientists from all over the world for 150 years. That's why I included "...as a process...", hoping that would tip you off to my meaning. No need to get pedantic. I promise to watch my syntax from now on

Yes, but you left out what was being attempted.
"Evolution as a process does not attempt..." "...to save an organism, but rather the species as a whole..."
Had it read "...to explain ______..." then I would have had no right to object, and your explanation would be fine. As it is, you were ascribing a purpose to a supposedly natural force.

This really doesn't matter, even if I am right. It is not germane to the subject.