Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Leoreth]

Even if their evidence to challenge the theory of evolution would be true, it only would make the theory of evolution wrong and not their theories right. As already said previously, that's the fallacy of false alternative.

In my opinion, ID / Creationism proponents should work more on evidence for their own theory than looking for weak spots in another. Problem is, there ain't any.

 

[useless]

Intelligent Design/Creationism has no evidence to even back it up, and it is essentially “God did it”. It’s intellectually dishonest, ignores the piles of evidence, and even the courts know it’s nothing but religion, inserted into science (where it does not belong) as evident in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling and the fact that even a religious judge, such as Judge Jones III saw past the defendant’s’ arguments and lies.

Seriously, there is nothing scientific about Creationism/Intelligent design, there is no actual evidence. Don't compare the two, science has a process of finding out things, in a usually objective manner, religion does not.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes. My last sentence refers as much to the first half of the preceding sentence as to the second.

 

[timtofly]

Then science should give up it's philisophical roots and stop telling people how we got here and just concentrate on where we are going. Who cares about the past any ways? It is not very scientific to guess at the data that has been subjected to so much cross-interference in the last 3 millenia, and since no one kept records from the previous ones, that should be historical guessing and not science at all.

I understand the not wanting facts from mythology around, but is "guess work" any better? Seems it all should be left in the dust from this point on. Keeping it with the scientific method and all, in a thousand years, even Columbus will be mythology.

 

[Holycannoli]

"Science" can't tell us where we're from, but it can tell us parts of the puzzle. Evolution is one part of the puzzle, but isn't the solution.

The problem is when "religion" outright denies "science". If both of them seek the truth, then neither of them should conflict like they seem to do, but of course rabid proponents of each actively deny the other.

What a true religious person should do is be thankful that we as humans are slowly uncovering the truths of the universe, and wonder how this all fits into God's grand plan. Evolution does not deny God except to those who already deny God, and Intelligent Design does not deny science except to those who already deny it. A religious person should not be denying either, no matter what their rabid proponents want to make you think.

 

[kramerfan86]

Then science should give up it's philisophical roots and stop telling people how we got here and just concentrate on where we are going. Who cares about the past any ways? It is not very scientific to guess at the data that has been subjected to so much cross-interference in the last 3 millenia, and since no one kept records from the previous ones, that should be historical guessing and not science at all.

I understand the not wanting facts from mythology around, but is "guess work" any better? Seems it all should be left in the dust from this point on. Keeping it with the scientific method and all, in a thousand years, even Columbus will be mythology.

Smart people care about past because it can give ideas about where one is going. Both historically and scientifically. Science shouldnt ignore the past because it buts heads with 1000 year old creation stories.

 

[timtofly]

Smart people care about past because it can give ideas about where one is going. Both historically and scientifically. Science shouldnt ignore the past because it buts heads with 1000 year old creation stories.

I think that story was told 3300 years ago, not 1000. Science can guess at the past all it wants too, but the scientific method is based on observation, not guess work. Now if people can band together and agree that something happened in the past without observation, they can call that a theory all they want.

Extrapolation paints a nice canvas, but it does not take photos like a real camera.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Intelligent Design/Creationism has no evidence to even back it up, and it is essentially “God did it”. It’s intellectually dishonest, ignores the piles of evidence, and even the courts know it’s nothing but religion, inserted into science (where it does not belong) as evident in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling and the fact that even a religious judge, such as Judge Jones III saw past the defendant’s’ arguments and lies.

Seriously, there is nothing scientific about Creationism/Intelligent design, there is no actual evidence. Don't compare the two, science has a process of finding out things, in a usually objective manner, religion does not.

ah, your just afraid that people are going to hear both sides.

 

[useless]

Science doesn't tell you, it attempts to explain where we came from, but at no point does it force you believe in it, if you want to remain in the scientific community.

Religion on the other-hand, is the complete opposite.

- Celtic Empire:

That simply isn't true, I just don't want something that isn't scientific, in any way, to be lumped in with science.

I'm not afraid, but I am concerned, that despite the mountain of evidence, people still ignore it and claim something that has no evidence, to be true.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

I don't know, the whole thing about a big, invisible man in the sky creating the first human out of clay is slightly convincing.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Extrapolation paints a nice canvas, but it does not take photos like a real camera.

So should the police stop trying to solve cases without any witnesses? Just because one wasn't there doesn't mean the nature of events that happened in the past can't be studied.

 

[uppi]

ah, your just afraid that people are going to hear both sides.

Why limit the education to two "sides"? There are a lot of creation myths all over the world, and why should we limit ourselves to just one? Teach them all the alternatives and let them decide, whether the Greeks, Egyptians or Hindus might have been right after all!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Exactly They can also learn that all western religions have essentially the same roots in that mythology. Again, I am all in favor of teaching a comparative religion course at the high school level where the topic of ID can be discussed at length. It should aid greatly in educating the general public about a topic which is typically covered at the college level in the US.

 

[timtofly]

So should the police stop trying to solve cases without any witnesses? Just because one wasn't there doesn't mean the nature of events that happened in the past can't be studied.

It is funny that the last time I brought up "witnesses" that was thrown out as hearsay and unreliable.

 

[Antilogic]

Kind of joined the discussion late, but I saw most of the "questions" have already been answered on the first page. I assume we already had the definition of a theory discussion, right?

ah, your just afraid that people are going to hear both sides.

Uh, no? Creationism is not a rigorous alternative to the theory of evolution. It is not in the same class of ideas. Any false equation of the two will only confuse students more.

Exactly They can also learn that all western religions have essentially the same roots in that mythology. Again, I am all in favor of teaching a comparative religion course at the high school level where the topic of ID can be discussed at length. It should aid greatly in educating the general public about a topic which is typically covered at the college level in the US.

Same here--I think a comparative religions class, just like a comparative governments class, would be an excellent addition to most high school curricula. If people want to teach creationism/ID, fine. Just teach it in a class on religions where it belongs.

 

[Dachs]

There is a huge difference between science and philosophy. It used to be quite common to confuse the two. Fortunately, that is no longer the case thanks largely to the scientific method.

Science is philosophy with different assumptions.

 

[Antilogic]

Science is philosophy with different assumptions.

That's why all us science folks get PhDs--doctors of philosophy in X.

 

[Leoreth]

Then science should give up it's philisophical roots and stop telling people how we got here and just concentrate on where we are going. Who cares about the past any ways? It is not very scientific to guess at the data that has been subjected to so much cross-interference in the last 3 millenia, and since no one kept records from the previous ones, that should be historical guessing and not science at all.

I understand the not wanting facts from mythology around, but is "guess work" any better? Seems it all should be left in the dust from this point on. Keeping it with the scientific method and all, in a thousand years, even Columbus will be mythology.

The word "guess work" is a severe misrepresentation. You could call hypotheses guess work in the broadest sense of the word, but as soon as there's evidence, it's no guess work anymore. And there is.

ah, your just afraid that people are going to hear both sides.

The discipline of history I've just founded teaches that the USA was founded by aliens who hated the British because they're eating mint sauce.

Don't want that to be taught at school? You're just afraid people are going to hear both sides

Also, everyone knows the creation myth at the time when evolution is usually taught at school, so it's not as if the whole thing is kept as a secret.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, 'both sides' has been discussed a great deal over the last 150 years. But as more and more science is discovered on the topic, we are better of spent teaching 'discovered facts'. There's too much to know to waste time balancing current data with YEC concerns.

 

[Cutlass]

ah, your just afraid that people are going to hear both sides.

If creationists had a side, you might have a point. But they don't. One interpretation of a religion says one thing. Science another. What you do not have is any science which contradicts the science. So you either accept or reject the science. You are not talking about competing interpretations of science.

Science classes are not religion classes. So if you are teaching science, you are teaching evolution.