Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

I got two words for you. Natural Selection.

And once again, NS is NOT evolution. No new species are being created. Existing species' appearances are being modified, in some cases even diet or niche, but in all cases, they remain what they were. The crabs are still crabs. They are not shrimp, nor are they lobsters. They have not transformed into giraffes or orangutans either. They are hard-shelled, multi-legged creatures that pick apart their food with pincers. They are crabs, they were crabs, and 42 trillion years from now, they will still be crabs, God-willing.

The belief that there are no new species being created was one and the same as the school of thought that no species ever went extinct. They were one and the same until it became obvious that the latter statement is false. Then proponents 'conveniently' dropped the latter statement but still believe in the former.

FL2, do you not believe that species go extinct?

If so, I guess it's going to get awful lonely on this planet, eventually.

What about the rest of the Universe. Surely you adhere to the scientific 'theory' that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. 500 years ago, I"m sure you would have argued the point, but I believe it's been sufficiently proven by this time. Though it IS still theory in the way that ToE is a theory.

Are there other planets out there? With life on them? Inetlligent? Do they worship your God? I mean, I'm sure they worship a God or Gods, as I believe that that its a natural thing to do....a natural way for advancing civs to explain the unexplainable.

Of course, much of what is unexplainable is eventually explained, but either fit in with the current methods of worship, or denied by many as 'just a theory'. For example, our place in the solar system, etc...

Do you not believe that both the ToE and Creationism are compatible with each other? I've even seen a couple Catholic priests that believe this. This idea is becoming far more prevalent as science become more and more impossible to deny.

Guess I believe that THAT IS the future of Creationism.

 

[sumociv]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it a whole lot simpler, and less messy, to conclude that the two organisms suffered through and survived the same epidemic, than to insert a middleman along the way?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know! Are you asking that from a point of strong knowledge of genetics or are you just a layman like myself?
Logically and with no knowledge of genetics at all, I would think that if there are 2 species that share the same retrovirus genetic signiture in the same part of their genetic coding, that the simplist explanation would be that they are genetically related species vs. species that suffered from the same disease. If two distantly related species like snails and monkeys shared the same retrovirus signiture then perhaps your explanation would be plausible. I guess this brings up the whole question of how we can trust scienctists who are some of the least objective people in the world on this issue of evolution, who have huge incentive to prove the theory that their whole field is built on and who are overwhelmingly atheists. But the argument is in their field and I believe that you have to meet them on their own terms and disprove them scientifically. If what they posit is wrong then it should be demonstratably wrong and thus attackable.

But if Jones can offer you consistant examples of genetic signiture similarities backed up by archeolgocal and geographical data, than hasn't he moved the theory of evolution a large step closer to verifiability. I'm hoping that someone on this board with more training than myself in genetics can give me some valid objections to Jones position. Occam's razor might be a fine approach for the philosophical and abstract 18th century stuff that Kant was dealing, but is it valid for something as counter-intuitive and complicated as 22nd century genetics? It sure as hell doesn't apply to quantom mechanics.....

 

[knowltok3]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

And why will we say this? Oh yeah, because it is the truth.

I notice that you don't say "fact."

I am reminded of Indiana Jones teaching the Archeology class. He tells them, "that Archeology is the search for facts. If its truth you want, Dr So-and-so's Theology class is down the hall."

 

[FearlessLeader2]

sumociv, does this answer your concerns?

Originally posted by Sixchan


What makes you think that the simple answer is correct? Are you using Occam's Razor?

Ockham's Razor aside, the simpler answer is usually right. Let's look at this from a step back...

We have two organisms that are both mammals. They both have a retrovirus stuck in their DNA. Why?

First off, how does a retrovirus get in there? Well, the virus it came from attacks the organism, and successfully infects it. The virus replicates itself, by invading host cells, inserting its genetic material into the nucleus, and turning the cell into a virus factory. Eventually this process spreads to the genitalia(else it would not be passed on n'est pas?). The viral DNA is encoded as mRNA and added to some gametes. The organism survives the infection, and breeds, passing the retroviral genes into its offspring, along with its own DNA. The retroviral gene is now part of the population's DNA.

Now back to the main question. Which is the more likely reason that two different species both have the same retro-viral genes? Is it because they survived the same plague, or that they had a common ancestor who did?
The first scenario requires no extra theories or even extra evidence to support it. Species survive plagues all the time. They've done it in the past, some are doing it now, and blimey if it don't look like they'll do it again in the future.
The second scenario requires the two species to have evolved from a third. Oddly enough, we are asked to simultaneously accept the presence of similar retro-viral genes in different organisms as proof of evolution, and to accept evolution as the explanation for the similarity.
In terms of common sense the second scenario is called putting the cart in front of the horse. Or something perhaps, even more ludicrous, like maybe giving the horse the reins, and sitting it on the buckboard.

Is my point clearer now?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by knowltok3


I notice that you don't say "fact."

I am reminded of Indiana Jones teaching the Archeology class. He tells them, "that Archeology is the search for facts. If its truth you want, Dr So-and-so's Theology class is down the hall."

So, your whole argument...is semantics? I mean, that's it?

Honestly.

I think I understand where your confusion is coming from. You think I am talking about 'truth', when in fact I am talking about that which is true. 'Truth' in this sense, is a belief, such as "All men are created equal..." or "...and endowed with certain inalienable rights...". These are truths. There is no evidence to support these claims, and while they might sound accurate or even desirable, there is no factual evidence to support these claims. They are merely regarded as self-evident. The fact that they are true is the only proof they require.

That which is true, on the other hand, needs to survive a test of logic or what-have-you. Now, for example, we have two theories about how a certain event happened. One of them is based on two phenomena that clearly do not support its conclusions, the other is based on currently unobservable phenomena that were documented in a book that has since managed to withstand all manner of scrutiny. Thus far no other theories have been offered to explain this event.

Of the two theories, which is the logical choice? One actively disproves itself. It does so by basing itself on two natural phenomena acting in a totally different manner than they can be clearly observed to act in. The other accepts as evidence a document that is known to contain a great many facts, contains no known untruths, and has survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact, the only body of study that does contradict this written work is the other theory. You know, the one that bases itself on two phenomena doing the exact opposite of what they do?

Doesn't seem to be a very hard choice to me. Then again, I have nothing to lose by being wrong. The people supporting the other theory are in large part employed solely because of it. Their very livelihood depends upon their theory. Without it, they will have to go get real jobs, and do real work. Their university degrees will become fit only for birdcage liner if they are proven wrong. Given these circumstances, is it even appropriate to allow only them to check each other's work?

I, for one, am not that credulent. To put it less politically, I'm not that gullible either.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
The belief that there are no new species being created was one and the same as the school of thought that no species ever went extinct. They were one and the same until it became obvious that the latter statement is false. Then proponents 'conveniently' dropped the latter statement but still believe in the former.

Other than the fact that you're not talking about me, I don't who who you're talking about.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
FL2, do you not believe that species go extinct?

Um, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of reading a newspaper. And please, tell me, better yet quote me, saying that extinction doesn't happen. I can quote myself saying it does about three posts ago.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
If so, I guess it's going to get awful lonely on this planet, eventually.

You appear to be implying that extinction itself is a natural phenomenon, and not merely a by-product of Natural Selection. Is this an accurate description of your opinion? If so, I do not share it. Extinction happens for a reason, not all by itself. The environment that a species depends upon changes, it can't adapt because of whatever, and poof! It no longer can be found.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
What about the rest of the Universe. Surely you adhere to the scientific 'theory' that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. 500 years ago, I"m sure you would have argued the point, but I believe it's been sufficiently proven by this time. Though it IS still theory in the way that ToE is a theory.

You lie sir. The earth can be shown not to be the center of the universe, with math to back it up. It is a fact. As to what assurances you may give about my conduct five centuries ago, that is amusing, because I cannot say with certainty myself what I might have done if I were born then.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Are there other planets out there? With life on them? Inetlligent? Do they worship your God?

I have seen no evidence to support that idea. My answer is no.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
I mean, I'm sure they worship a God or Gods, as I believe that that its a natural thing to do....a natural way for advancing civs to explain the unexplainable.

Of course, much of what is unexplainable is eventually explained, but either fit in with the current methods of worship, or denied by many as 'just a theory'.

Ah, I see. So the only reason whatsoever to worship a god or gods is to explain the inexplicable? So tell me, what unexplained phenomena is Christianity attempting to explain? Magnetism? Gravity? The orbital dance? Exactly what superstitious twaddle am I fully enmired in?
It seems to me, that the only things I still consider unexplained, if by unexplained you mean I don't have a scientific answer for, are the things that science is currently unable to explain. You know, like where everything came from? Like what caused the Big Bang? Like where life came from? Things like that.
So far, the most plausible explanation I have for these events, is that they were the act of a Creator. I have heard and examined numerous contrary ideas and theories, and all of them have inescapable failures. Am I to reject the concept of a god, simply because gravity has been partially explained? Or electro-magnetism? Or astrophysics? Just because the sun is not, in fact, Apollo's chariot, no god can possibly exist, becausethe existence of one god has been proven false?
I disagree. Explain everything you can, and show me your work, so I know you're not making it up. Everything that's left when you are done, is the signature of God. So far, he's autographed life, the universe, and everything.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Do you not believe that both the ToE and Creationism are compatible with each other?

No, I do not. The evidence does not support the ToE. There is no reason to assume that God would bother with such a mechanism, when He went to so much trouble to assure that animals would reproduce after their own kind.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
I've even seen a couple Catholic priests that believe this.

So? Men of the cloth lose their faith all the time.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
This idea is becoming far more prevalent as science become more and more impossible to deny.

If it is so impossible to deny, then why am I so successul at it? I am completely un-swayed by the ToE arguments. In fact, their arguments are actually the main reason I do not support the ToE. I can see right through the gaping holes, and there is nothing inside to give it weight.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Guess I believe that THAT IS the future of Creationism.

What is? People giving up their religious beliefs simply because Science's believers are shouting louder? Not me.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Just to let you know Vry, I am currently studying two articles published by prominent ToE researchers. So far I am not worried.

 

[polymath]

"Explain everything you can, and show me your work, so I know you're not making it up. Everything that's left when you are done, is the signature of God."
So God leaves his signature in the gaps that science leaves? What happens if science fills in the gaps?
Actually, could you explain the reasoning behind that paragraph again, and show me your work so I know you aren't making it up?

 

[sumociv]

Many thanks for your critical answer to my question re: retrovirus signitures and evolution. I now realize I must question Jones' more instead of simply accepting his findings. You are right regarding Science. It is a system that by definition can't or won't disprove itself. In fact the opinion that science can lead to "Truth" can be easily debunked by pointing out that every scientific theory asserts itself by proving that the previous theory was wrong. However, the new discoverer suddenly expectes us to accept that, at last they, has discovered the truth once and for all. "All the other guys before me were wrong but I am right". In reality his truth/theory is only valid until the next one replaces it.

I am a believer - I believe that God created the world. I tend to believe that evolution (at least the evolutionary theory today as opposed to what Darwin believed) has some evidence and should probably be accepted as valid, with the caveat that we do not yet understand everything that happened. Scientists must abandon the modern myth that science will some day answer all questions. They need to embrace the post-modern view of reality that the rest of the world lives in. I believe that if they just admitted that they will never know all someday, that their credibility would skyrocket (as would the accuracy of their findings).

I am going to respond to your quote however re: evolution and creationism.....
==============================================
"Of the two theories, which is the logical choice? One actively disproves itself. It does so by basing itself on two natural phenomena acting in a totally different manner than they can be clearly observed to act in. The other accepts as evidence a document that is known to contain a great many facts, contains no known untruths, and has survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact, the only body of study that does contradict this written work is the other theory. You know, the one that bases itself on two phenomena doing the exact opposite of what they do?"
==============================================

That really is a topic for another thread - but this is really an incredibly ignorant statement about the Bible. There are tons of errors of all types in the Bible and if you want some examples I would be happy to provide you with as many as you want. (remember that I am an evangelical christian when you read this!) In brief there are: examples of conflicting accounts, historical mistakes, rewritten history, myths and legends, material that is reworked from other pagan sources, historigraphical errors etc. Is hasn't "survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years" at all. The history of the trasmission of the Bible is one of the most complicated fields of study known to man! There are all kinds of textural transmission errors, lost material and even examples of where the text was intentionally changed to "correct" it. You are vastly oversimplifying what the Bile really is.

In fact aren't you commiting the same mistake that you are so critical of evolutionists? In the quote above you challenge evolution as being in essence a circular argument. Isn't your view of the Bible identically flawed.

] i.e. 1) The Bible is inerrant. 2) The Bible claims to be inerrant. 2a) Any "supposed" error in the Bible is really a result of misreading it, because I know the Bible is inerrant, because it says so itself.....3)therefore the Bible is inerrant.

Or have I mistated your line of thinking?

I appreciate your critical reasoning ability. You were able to point out to me some alternatives to accepting Jones' interpretation of the data because of your critical questioning ability. I think if you apply that same approach to the Bible that you will find it to be a lot more comlex than you give it credit for.

Thanks for the answer...
-----sumociv

 

[knowltok3]

The thing about the retroviruses is that the same ones are found in many many different animals. Many more than a typical retrovirus can infect without changing into a different retrovirus. What you are asking is for us to accept that the same exact virus infected hundreds of species at once, though that does not occur today. Even with Aids you would get a different signature with monkey Aids than with human Aids. Your own logic sugests that if I can't see it going on today, I should look elsewhere, by that logic, I shouldn't accept these widespread viruses that affected so many species all at the same time.

"The other accepts as evidence a document that is known to contain a great many facts, contains no known untruths, and has survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years."

Could you define "intact"? I'll leave it to Sumociv to handle the "no known untruths" part.

 

[Sixchan]

Ockham's Razor aside, the simpler answer is usually right.

Even simpler than creation is to say they ALWAYS existed, no-one created them, they didn't evolve, they just ARE. So is this simple answer more correct than creation?

The first scenario requires no extra theories or even extra evidence to support it. Species survive plagues all the time. They've done it in the past, some are doing it now, and blimey if it don't look like they'll do it again in the future.
The second scenario requires the two species to have evolved from a third. Oddly enough, we are asked to simultaneously accept the presence of similar retro-viral genes in different organisms as proof of evolution, and to accept evolution as the explanation for the similarity.

The third solution: It didn't survive a plauge of any sort. It was just always there. This theory requires no proof. Spiecies EXIST all the time as far back as we can show in concrete evidence. What if they always did?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by polymath
"Explain everything you can, and show me your work, so I know you're not making it up. Everything that's left when you are done, is the signature of God."
So God leaves his signature in the gaps that science leaves? What happens if science fills in the gaps?
Actually, could you explain the reasoning behind that paragraph again, and show me your work so I know you aren't making it up?

It is one of the most common forms of human arrogance to assume that we can eventually explain everything. Many are so devoted to this dogma, that they create and accept explanations that no unbiased mind could accept.

As to the silliness of attempting to throw that last sentence back in my face, as regards this matter, well, don't you ever re-read what you've written before you hit the Send button?

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

You lie sir. The earth can be shown not to be the center of the universe, with math to back it up. It is a fact. As to what assurances you may give about my conduct five centuries ago, that is amusing, because I cannot say with certainty myself what I might have done if I were born then.

I have seen no evidence to support that idea. My answer is no.

Ah, I see. So the only reason whatsoever to worship a god or gods is to explain the inexplicable?

Ok....a couple things here..

You lie sir. The earth can be shown not to be the center of the universe, with math to back it up. It is a fact. As to what assurances you may give about my conduct five centuries ago, that is amusing, because I cannot say with certainty myself what I might have done if I were born then.

I have seen no evidence to support that idea. My answer is no.

Ah, I see. So the only reason whatsoever to worship a god or gods is to explain the inexplicable? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ok....a couple things here. I don't lie. Are you telling me, FL2, that in 1400 B.C.E., you would have argued that the earth is NOT in the center of the Universe??? You'd be a dead man. Of course you would have.

Because the earth can be shown NOW to not be the center, but religion fought that theory tooth and nail. Copernicus wouldn't even make his theory public for fear of the Church. Gallileo backed him, when it was made public, and he suffered for it. You are being ridiculous, FL2. Religion has always fought science, until the proof becomes absolutely iffrefutable. Until it is obvious that they look like idiots for doubting science.

Or, are you trying to tell us that you would have stood up to the Church, that you would have known better? Odds are that that's a bunch of crap.

Same thing with the extinction thing. Of course, you say, you belive in it. All you have to do is read the paper. MY POINT, again, is that that's what the religious always say. 150 years ago, the thought that species went extinct was the same as saying that you adhere to the ToE. People of religion denied that new species were ever created, and that any species ever ceased to exist.....because God already had made everytthing perfect, and no change was necessary.

"Ah, I see. So the only reason whatsoever to worship a god or gods is to explain the inexplicable? So tell me, what unexplained phenomena is Christianity attempting to explain? Magnetism? Gravity? The orbital dance? Exactly what superstitious twaddle am I fully enmired in?
"

Not the only reason. No. I'll try to be alittle more clear for you.

That is how religion begins...."What the hell was that big, streaking flash of light?" "It must be the Gods. Maybe they are angry with us." Do you not see this as being a likely conversation 15,000 years ago? It's all just evolved from that point....and at some point about 7 or 8,000 years ago, somebody had the idea that maybe it's not many gods, but one all powerfull, omnipotent God. Thus we get Judaism, which EVOLVED into Christianity, which is, itself evolving.

And as for Christianity, while they may ADMIT to what science has proven in the fields you mention, it wasn't until science came up with the answers that they would do so and stopped giving the credit directly to God. I can't believe you bring up 'The orbital dance' when to have adhered to such a theory in 1400 would have had you BURNING AT THE STAKE.

I get the feeling that in your eyes, science has never proven religion wrong. Because admitting that would also FORCE you to admit that it could happen again. Say, with ToE, maybe??

 

[CurtSibling]

Good post, Voodooace.

Science = Study, fact.
Religion = Faith, belief.

These two differing ideals, that can never fully agree.

But I think the poll results tell us something.
This thread will never be resolved, as we bacteria argue over our origins.

We are space dust in the great scheme of things, and some arrogant human ideas of theology only stretch as far as this planet.

Luckily!

 

[sumociv]

I have been arguing for evolution and pointing out that the Bible is not infallible but I have to react to the pro-science myopia in the last couple of posts.

"Science = Study, fact."
"Religion = Faith, belief."

That is an accurate statement in a sense because there is a difference in approach in science and religion. But that doesn't mean that you can infer a qualitative difference.

Science does not = fact. It may be a search for truth, but then so is religion. Scientist today consists of replacing a previously held theory that is now shown to be inaccurate with a new theory which we are supposed to believe as fact. When in reality, the next guy who needs to post a dissertation in the field will show the current theory to be flawed and riduculous in the light of new findings.

There needs to be a caveat by those who criticise religion and worship science. Admit that science can't prove how the world began or how humans reached this point. Admit that it is a theory. Heck, admit that only about 3 people on the planet today can really understand evolutionary genetics enough to argue these questions. Chosse your side, and understand why you believe what you believe. just admit that you might be wrong..........

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sumociv
I have been arguing for evolution and pointing out that the Bible is not infallible but I have to react to the pro-science myopia in the last couple of posts.

"Science = Study, fact."
"Religion = Faith, belief."

That is an accurate statement in a sense because there is a difference in approach in science and religion. But that doesn't mean that you can infer a qualitative difference.

Science does not = fact. It may be a search for truth, but then so is religion. Scientist today consists of replacing a previously held theory that is now shown to be inaccurate with a new theory which we are supposed to believe as fact. When in reality, the next guy who needs to post a dissertation in the field will show the current theory to be flawed and riduculous in the light of new findings.

There needs to be a caveat by those who criticise religion and worship science. Admit that science can't prove how the world began or how humans reached this point. Admit that it is a theory. Heck, admit that only about 3 people on the planet today can really understand evolutionary genetics enough to argue these questions. Chosse your side, and understand why you believe what you believe. just admit that you might be wrong..........

Of course it is theory. Didn't say it wasn't. We can't prove how the world began, no. But there are tons of data that give us what we feel is a decent picture of how it seems to have happened. Of course there are questions.

There were questions regarding the heliocentric model relating to gravity when Copernicus' work was released. Religion scoffed at the theory because of this. That is, until Kepler and Brahe showed why Copernicus' theories do work. Even then, it was still only theory. The religious then made the same arguments against it that now are used against such accepted theories as the Big Bang and Evolution. Kepler could use math to show WHY he felt the way he did. Just like we use math now to be able to tell the state of the Universe .0001 seconds after the Big Bang, then .0008 seconds afterward, then .0015 seconds, and so on......it all comes out in the math. It's all still theory, but things mathematicians have predicted should be there have been shown to be there.....backround radiation is a good example....call it further proof, as I do, or call it coincidence, as has always been used.

Oh, and FL2, I forgot to mention that, yes, there is a lot of evidence now that there are other planets out there. Once again, the magic of math helped out. People were able to predict that, since we couldn't actually SEE a planet, because of the brightness of a given planet's sun. So mathematicians said, "Well, we may not be able to SEE it, but we can see the EFFECT it has on its sun." Lo and behold, they were absolutely correct. Using the math and science of men like Kepler, we were able to PROVE that there are other planets.

I can see that this would bother the religious myopics greatly....as much or more than ToE. Because, it seems obvious to me, out of all the stars out there, which are actually just suns like ours, it is ridiculous to think that our sun, which has nine planets, is the only one out of billions to have formed planets.

And out of the millions and millions of planets out there, it is grossly myopic and self-centered of us to think that ours is the only one to have formed life.

And while there are very few that can fully comprehend the science of evolutionary genetics (more than three, let's say, but less than one or two hundred), I am fully able to GRASP the general idea. I can't work out the mathematics of Kepler's Laws of Motion, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in them. Enough people that are much smarter than I, who's lives revolve around proof, have given it their seal of approval, and that's generally good enough for me.

Science offers proof, or the search for the truth.

Religion preaches faith. Take it or leave it.

How does that sound....better?

 

[Knowltok]

Perhaps it is buried somewhere in the hundreds of posts above, (I've read them, but only as they came out, and I'm not doing it again) but can someone on the creationist side (FL2) clarify something for me:

I believe it was stated that species only go extinct, that they do not evolve, and that every species was around at creation. First, if I am wrong on that, correct me.

If not, what is the explanation for there not being modern animal fossils deep in the rock strata, where there are other, extinct animals?

 

[sumociv]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Science offers proof, or the search for the truth.

Religion preaches faith. Take it or leave it.

How does that sound....better?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but........

I think this distinction only applies to the ability to convert someone to what you believe. Probably every religious person on the planet thinks that they have the truth. They would disagree strongly with your statement.

I am searching for truth in the religious part of my life, and I am searching for truth in areas that interest me scientifically. Does that mean that I have to be either religious or scientific?

Science allows a system whereas you can prove that you are right and the other side is wrong. The scientific method can lead to statements of truth that are verifiable.

Religion does not allow you to ever "prove" to someone else that you are right and that they are wrong. This is antithetical to the whole idea of religion. But that doesn't mean that religion is inferior to science, just that it deals with different type of questions.

I have strong reasons that I believe that my religious thinking is right, I don't just accept things I read or things that I feel or things that I experience to be the truth. But I can never use those reasons that I believe to prove to you that I am right. Although many religious people fail to make this caveat and erroneously believe that they can prove they are right.

So in the question of evolution, the bible and religion have no justification in discounting the theory. It is not a religious question. It would be like using geometric proofs to prove why the Yankees are your favorite baseball team. Its a categorical fallacy to argue against evolution on biblical grounds.

Likewise, although science can attempt to prove evolution ( And I believe they are on the verge of offering genetic proof of evolution.) It can not answer questions like, "Does God Exist?" or "What caused the big bang?". This is outside the realm of science and must be dealt with on a philosophical or theological level. Some of the arrogance of above statements claiming that science is so much better than religion are also a result of not seeing this categorical fallacy.

Even if evolution is proven to have occured, science can not explain why it occurred.

I find the beauty of evoltion and the program-like nature of genetics to be the result of a creator. The idea that evolution happened out of some chaotic, self-organizing process is extremly bizarre to me. I only feel that it would appeal to someone who strongly disaprroves of the idea that God could exist and is thus left with a huge need to cling to some sciece fiction notion of the universe being a self-generating system.

Perhaps one of you atheists out there can tell me whether you are content with the idea of evolution being a result of purely natural processes. If so, I have several questions for you:

How could a code as complicated and intricate as the genome write itself and end up with almost an endless variety of highly specialized life? Wouldn't you expect evolution to be content with a much simpler sytem? What drove nature to walk down such a long and windy road?

If evolution is true, doesn't it have huge implications for how human societies should live? Doesn't it mean that morality is an illusion and shouldn't the strongest crush the weakest without any reticience? And shouldn't we all cheer them on since they are acting in our genetic self interest?

Doesn't it open up the possibility that some people/races/genetic recipients are superior to others?

Why should we hesitate to aid natural selection by modifying genes and purging our ranks of gentically handicapped individuals?

Curious for some responses...........

 

[Knowltok]

Although many religious people fail to make this caveat and erroneously believe that they can prove they are right.

So true.

Why should we hesitate to aid natural selection by modifying genes and purging our ranks of gentically handicapped individuals?

This question already has its own thread, but I personally think we should do this regardless. That is not to say that there shouldn't be limits, but editing out cancer, down syndrome, parkinson's, and other problems will help society, and will help the people that would have suffered from these and many other problems. Any further discusion on this line though probably belongs in another thread.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by sumociv
That is an accurate statement in a sense because there is a difference in approach in science and religion. But that doesn't mean that you can infer a qualitative difference.

Science does not = fact. It may be a search for truth, but then so is religion. Scientist today consists of replacing a previously held theory that is now shown to be inaccurate with a new theory which we are supposed to believe as fact. When in reality, the next guy who needs to post a dissertation in the field will show the current theory to be flawed and riduculous in the light of new findings.

There needs to be a caveat by those who criticise religion and worship science. Admit that science can't prove how the world began or how humans reached this point. Admit that it is a theory. Heck, admit that only about 3 people on the planet today can really understand evolutionary genetics enough to argue these questions. Chosse your side, and understand why you believe what you believe. just admit that you might be wrong..........

Is that tirade about me?
It's amazing that you can spool so much talk from one small quote.

I have sadi on many occasions that science does not have all answers...

Sumociv, I think you mistake me for someone else, I gave my
view of the two spheres based on my views, if you don't like
what I say...too bad.

I gave a reasonable view without any criticisms to others.

If you read my whole post, (which I suspect you did not)
You would see that the point of it was to say that science and
religion do NOT have the answers to everything.

Kindly take note.

I have my views, you have yours, don't overstep the line.

PS
I can say without hesitation that science has made many blunders... But religion has made many more.