Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[kramerfan86]

Aye, there is this common misconception that since science refuses to incorporate God into its work it must be an atheist tool, when in reality its simply because God is not a variable that fits into the scientific method and as such is excluded. Plenty of scientists are not atheists, but even the religious ones dont bring God into their work simply because it goes against how science is done. Saying evolution is how life got to its current point doesn't not exclude the existence of God, saying life spontaneously generated does not exclude the existence of God, saying the Big Bang is how the universe developed does not exclude the existence of God, in fact nothing in science does that, but at the same time even if God does exist the science classroom is not the place for him to be discussed.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Wish me luck. Like I said, is wasn't talked about much.

It was found sometime within the last year or so, if anyone wants to look for it themselves.

EDIT: It may have been this. According to the article, some scientists are suggesting it is a different species entirely. Yeah.

I know we've passed this by already, but I think I've stumbled on the find in question. The bones were found in 2010, but they were located in South Africa and are not actually anything near an indictment of the theory of evolution, but instead point to a different evolutionary path for our species.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Aye, there is this common misconception that since science refuses to incorporate God into its work it must be an atheist tool, when in reality its simply because God is not a variable that fits into the scientific method and as such is excluded. Plenty of scientists are not atheists, but even the religious ones dont bring God into their work simply because it goes against how science is done. Saying evolution is how life got to its current point doesn't not exclude the existence of God, saying life spontaneously generated does not exclude the existence of God, saying the Big Bang is how the universe developed does not exclude the existence of God, in fact nothing in science does that, but at the same time even if God does exist the science classroom is not the place for him to be discussed.

In short: nature works perfectly well without assuming supernatural intervention. I still don't understand why creationists are so insistent. Maybe they're not satisfied with god being superfluous to nature. They feel they must make god fit into it actively. This is why they will never be taken seriously by real scientists.

 

[Akka]

Aye, there is this common misconception that since science refuses to incorporate God into its work it must be an atheist tool, when in reality its simply because God is not a variable that fits into the scientific method and as such is excluded.

To be honest, though science doesn't deal with religious idea, it's pretty obvious and logical to see where this "misconception" comes from : if things works and can be explained without god, it's a strong indication that god doesn't exists.
The very methods and tools that make science what it is (dealing with facts and making the most-fitting theories) show that god a highly improbable possibility. As such, science, though it's not its goal and it doesn't involve itself with religion, has the peripherical effect of supporting atheism.

 

[Arakhor]

It doesn't matter to me whether or not God started the Big Bang or caused the spontaneous generation of matter or even if he was there all the time purposely directing organisms down specific routes that was later defined as evolution. Why it happened is not anywhere near as important as how and given the current scientific evidence, I utterly reject the entire Genesis story as any other than an ancient religious text with possible spiritual or theological meaning today.

 

[uppi]

I know we've passed this by already, but I think I've stumbled on the find in question. The bones were found in 2010, but they were located in South Africa and are not actually anything near an indictment of the theory of evolution, but instead point to a different evolutionary path for our species.

That one got on the title page of Science yesterday. That's hardly a coverup.

 

[Oerdin]

Jesus Christ, the OP is so full of ******** fail it's amazing that cut & paste spammer can even type and remember to breath at the same time. Seriously, go back to school and get a basic education.

 

[Leoreth]

It doesn't matter to me whether or not God started the Big Bang or caused the spontaneous generation of matter or even if he was there all the time purposely directing organisms down specific routes that was later defined as evolution. Why it happened is not anywhere near as important as how and given the current scientific evidence, I utterly reject the entire Genesis story as any other than an ancient religious text with possible spiritual or theological meaning today.

That's a valid point. It started to dawn on me (I mean not that I didn't already know that, but I remembered), that creationists tend to argue about capital-letter TRUTH and that it needs to be taught.

That's actually not the main goal of science. The main goal of science is to get an understanding of how something behaves before we observe it by analyzing previous obeservations and coming up with explanations that are consistent with all previous observations, because that's the most likely explanation that gives us the ability to predict behavior.

At least from this perspective, the theory of evolution is rock solid.

 

[El_Machinae]

Incidently, the ID guys seldom use the G word at all.

Only because they were busted doing so too much. Neither their motives nor rationale have changed, despite the withering effect of the public eye. They're wrong and dishonest. They change their tack merely because their old tack was eviscerated, but they've not changed what they were thinking. It's a classic example of post-hoc justifications.

 

[mangxema]

As an educated Catholic, I believe in evolution and creation. God did it and science studies how.

I would point out that there are Creationists and there are Intelligent Designers, and they are not the same. Creationists are typically fundamentalist Christians - the literal and unquestioned authority of the Bible as God's revealed truth. On the other hand, Intelligent Designers embrace science, though disagree with Darwinism. The ID guys are themselves mostly scientists. And they seem to be raising an interesting ruckus.

One of the most frustrating things about the 'Intelligent Design' movement is that it takes a reasonable phrase and effectively steals it and misrepresents it to the point where the phrase itself is tainted. It is in reality rebranded creationism. I respect what I presume your position to be, but that is not what the people who use the term ID actually represent.

 

[Glassfan]

Only because they were busted doing so too much. Neither their motives nor rationale have changed, despite the withering effect of the public eye. They're wrong and dishonest. They change their tack merely because their old tack was eviscerated, but they've not changed what they were thinking. It's a classic example of post-hoc justifications.

One of the most frustrating things about the 'Intelligent Design' movement is that it takes a reasonable phrase and effectively steals it and misrepresents it to the point where the phrase itself is tainted. It is in reality rebranded creationism. I respect what I presume your position to be, but that is not what the people who use the term ID actually represent.

Well, I've actually examined some of their literature - books, articles and videos - which I suspect most of the denizens of these threads have not. They're not the same people as the Creationists. They haven't changed their tack and it's not rebranded creationism.

There really are some problems with Darwinism. As I've already mentioned above, Gould (Harvard) and Eldredge (AMNH) challenged Darwinian gradualism with their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. While I subscribe to the Fact of Evolution, the theories are just theories. and we'd be stupid to think we know the last word on everything. Ask Newton what he thinks of Einstein.

 

[kramerfan86]

Well, I've actually examined some of their literature - books, articles and videos - which I suspect most of the denizens of these threads have not. They're not the same people as the Creationists. They haven't changed their tack and it's not rebranded creationism.

There really are some problems with Darwinism. As I've already mentioned above, Gould (Harvard) and Eldredge (AMNH) challenged Darwinian gradualism with their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. While I subscribe to the Fact of Evolution, the theories are just theories. and we'd be stupid to think we know the last word on everything. Ask Newton what he thinks of Einstein.

I think their point glassfan is that creationists have highjacked the name and idea of true intelligent designers and used it as a tool to try and wedge as much religion as they can into schools. Creationists realize that their true beliefs have absolutely 0% chances of getting into schools, so they have hijacked something else in an attempt to get as close to it as they can.

 

[Glassfan]

I think their point glassfan is that creationists have highjacked the name and idea of true intelligent designers and used it as a tool to try and wedge as much religion as they can into schools. Creationists realize that their true beliefs have absolutely 0% chances of getting into schools, so they have hijacked something else in an attempt to get as close to it as they can.

I see what you mean. The real ID guys are actually in the scientific community and fight an uphill battle against rigid academic conformity.

 

[squadbroken]

Well, I've actually examined some of their literature - books, articles and videos - which I suspect most of the denizens of these threads have not. They're not the same people as the Creationists. They haven't changed their tack and it's not rebranded creationism.

Yes they are and yes it is.

There really are some problems with Darwinism. As I've already mentioned above, Gould (Harvard) and Eldredge (AMNH) challenged Darwinian gradualism with their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. While I subscribe to the Fact of Evolution, the theories are just theories. and we'd be stupid to think we know the last word on everything. Ask Newton what he thinks of Einstein.

You'll be happy to know that pure Darwinism has been out of style for a century.

 

[emzie]

Well, I've actually examined some of their literature - books, articles and videos - which I suspect most of the denizens of these threads have not. They're not the same people as the Creationists. They haven't changed their tack and it's not rebranded creationism.

One could be an intelligent design proponent and not be a capital-c Creationist, sure. Hell, one could still advocate intelligent design while ruling out the supernatural -- aliens did it, for instance.

However, the main proponents of intelligent design, with the Discovery Institute leading the way, are absolutely capital-C Creationists. For your reading pleasure.

There really are some problems with Darwinism. As I've already mentioned above, Gould (Harvard) and Eldredge (AMNH) challenged Darwinian gradualism with their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. While I subscribe to the Fact of Evolution, the theories are just theories. and we'd be stupid to think we know the last word on everything. Ask Newton what he thinks of Einstein.

Er, no....

Punctuated Equilibrium is like a highway bypass around a city -- say 270 around Columbus. It's certainly a challenge to the old routes (US 40) running through the city, but to say it challenges driving makes absolutely no sense.

I see what you mean. The real ID guys are actually in the scientific community and fight an uphill battle against rigid academic conformity.

The metaphor of an uphill battle is too kind. It's more like trying to walk through a swamp.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

ID is just a re-branding of creationism without the mention of god. It's still not science.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I've actually examined some of their literature - books, articles and videos - which I suspect most of the denizens of these threads have not. They're not the same people as the Creationists. They haven't changed their tack and it's not rebranded creationism.

They're not YECers, I'll give you that. Their theory is inconsistent with the Bible. But my contention was that they did discuss God, and only stopped because they were caught doing so, and then they rebranded their efforts in order to continue their quest. The goals haven't changed, they're trying to convince the world that there was a micro-creator involved in our history.

It's true that the science of 'intelligent design' might offer something someday, the ability to determine if something was 'designed'. This would be pretty useful for (say) archaeology! If we could determine if a stone chip (to build a knife) was 'designed' but the air-conditioning of termite mounds was 'not designed' through some type of formulas, that would be cool. Their theory of irreducible complexity, as it pertains to biology, is less interesting, mainly because they've been wrong so often. Gene shucking is too easy and too common to think that we could prove IC with any type of reasonableness

This is what I am referring to.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

 

[Algeroth]

Why do creationists paint evolution as the atheist answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, rather than just the Theory of Evolution? Is it because it disagrees with Genesis and is therefore Bad and Wrong?

I think it has something to do with Dennet and "universal acid".

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Why do creationists paint evolution as the atheist answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, rather than just the Theory of Evolution?

I don't know for how many this holds true, but in some cases I fear that's the only way they know of looking at the world. Having grown up in a religious environment where your worldview is shaped by clergy telling you to believe things just because they're handed down to them by authority figures, they may not understand the idea of choosing beliefs based on evidence and science. If they're fed anti-science propaganda, that probably doesn't help either.

 

[naterator]

Whenever someone says there is no evidence... - there usually is but they don't accept it. The ID guys look at microbiology for instance, and recognize a bewildering complexity that they believe is statistically improbable, and unlikely by any natural mechanism like natural selection.

Again, I don't actually believe in ID, but it does have evidence and reasoning and is a possible challenge to Darwinism, just like Stephen J. Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium once was. Don't just reject it out of hand.

That's exactly the problem with ID though. Their entire argument is "That can't be".

Why can't it be?
It just can't.
But why though?
Don't you see, it just can't.

That is why it is dismissed summarily by science at large. It is not a theory as to how or why things are as they are, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh-uh". The "build a time machine or you have no evidence" post in this thread demonstrates that quite well.