Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Not so Intelligent Design
pkcricket - you can always count on a good discussion here
. . or at least I have convinced myself of this.
posted by
gomedome
on June 7, 2006 at 1:33 PM
| link to this | reply
My mistake then. This is a good discussion nonetheless. Plus, I'm still learning about the stances of the different people in here. Thanks! Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 7, 2006 at 11:58 AM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - first I should say that I am not a proponent of evolution
as an adequate theory to explain the origins of our species.
It is a theory that has some irrefutable elements but also gaps and missing elements. I also do not claim to be an expert on either the subject of evolution or creationism. But I do know a few things about both. "Devolution" is a layman's term from the movies that is meaningless when applied to evolution. (It actually means the transfer of government powers, from the federal to the regional level). There is no term for the converse of evolution, as it is directionless. A life form can evolve to be a simpler life form for example, it does not necessarily have to evolve into a more complex life form.
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply
It's been my experience with proponents of evolution for them to use natural selection as a sign of evolution. But the existence of natural selection is not denied by those who hold to the creation view or ID, those who understand science in any respect that is. It felt to me that was where your argument was going, and I thought I would clarify my thoughts on that line of thinking. I do not think that natural selection is an indicator of evolution, but simply a method of God to create variety and adaptation within a species. Most of the changes within a species is a result of devolution (losing information from the DNA) rather than a building up of it, which is suggested by evolution.
posted by
pkcricket
on June 6, 2006 at 2:25 PM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - to say that evolution is not a sound theory because of
observations outside of what the theory contends is not a valid position.
The theory of evolution contends that all cats descended from a common ancestry. Influences, including natural selection, over the history of the development of this species, has been responsible for the numerous variations that exist today on earth. I'm not quite following how you dismiss evolution based on an occurrence, such as the cross breeding between species, simply because you feel that it should be evident. The fact that cross breeding amongst differing species is not possible, as far as we know, does not erode any contentions as found within the theory.
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 1:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Is it the evolution between species, or natural selection within a species? We do not have any fossils that indicate a species that is a mix of a cat and a dog. Neither do we today have cat-dogs running around. If evolution were a sound theory, in my mind, we would see many more intermediate species around than we do today. The "evolution" that we see are only variations within a species. A yellow goldfinch is different from a crested goldfinch...but they are still goldfinches. A Siamese cat can be breeded with a Calico, but they will still be a cat. cats cannot interbreed with dogs. That's just my observation. Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 6, 2006 at 12:56 PM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - that's a valid position
The theory of evolution has numerous holes in it that are filled with assumptions and I have to agree that we will never know our origins with any certainty beyond educated speculation. I personally find the theory of evolution to be inadequate but simply the best we have, or are likely to have as an explanation of how we came to be. The validity of the theory of evolution is only found in the fact that we have proven that life forms evolve over time and as they are subjected to certain influences. Maybe it is time to reconsider how we look at this incomplete explanation.
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 12:23 PM
| link to this | reply
I think it's important to understand that any "science" that looks at origins must be based on a presupposition. There is no way to adequately evaluate the origin of the world we live in through the scientific method and arena. Simply because there is no way to test it, there can be no control, it cannot be duplicated, and I'm sure there are other reasons that are eluding my mind at the moment, but these are major ones. I cannot say that based on what I see before my eyes that there is reason to believe something yea-many years ago happened in such a way.
This goes not only for creation-science, intelligent design, but also for evolution. There is no way to sceintifically duplicate what has happened in the past. Therefore, I think it better to take origins "science" completely out of the science realm. No matter what we have in front of our eyes...there's no guarantee that it got to where or how it is by the way we think it did. Even if we have something we know in our right hand, what we hold in our left, could look identical, but could be that way by completely different methods. That sentence makes sense in my mind, but I'm a blonde and that happens a lot to very unitelligible sentences of mine. Thanks for the question though. Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 6, 2006 at 12:06 PM
| link to this | reply
redwood - it is very likely that "violations" occur with alarming frequency
Those involved in the scientific process are not immune to hunches or their own personal bias' for example. Where the process is important is in that; as any scientific contention is elevated from an hypothesis to a theory, the checks and balances of meeting specific criteria separates belief from provable fact. The end justifies the means in cases of violation of scientific methodology but the conclusions must be sound and inevitably meet scientific criteria or they remain nothing more than belief.
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 7:41 AM
| link to this | reply
It is my understanding that Einstein violated the scientific methodology of
1905 when he began developing the theory of relativity. He definitely stepped "outside of the box". So did Newton, Galileo, and a few others before him.
posted by
redwood
on June 6, 2006 at 7:18 AM
| link to this | reply
redwood - you could definitely argue that with some validity
Contradiction, revision and new discovery are all part of the scientific process. And yes the scientific method must be preserved at all "reasonable" cost. If it is not, if its integrity is compromised as ID proponents are attempting to do, we end up with the lines between religious belief and science being blurred. How can this possibly be good for anyone?
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 7:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, I could argue that evolution has gone through many contradictory
changes, but I won't. I guess that the "scientific method" must be preserved for its own sake, at all cost.
posted by
redwood
on June 6, 2006 at 6:57 AM
| link to this | reply
redwood - save your breath (or key strokes)
attempting to discredit those who adhere to facts and measurable observation doesn't wash with me. In all of this debate, no one is saying that ID is not a viable alternative mind set, for some it certainly is. The actual focus of this debate should be on whether or not we will allow an ever uniting religious front to destroy the integrity of scientific methodology with their religious beliefs.
If you think that you have somehow identified a religious belief system within those who are resistant to having the beliefs of others forced upon them, I regret that I cannot see your point. What I can see however is the real danger that none of the adherents to Christian religions want to recognize. The practices of, and the understanding of scientific methodology cannot be diluted in the school systems to support the religious views of those of a certain religion. The caution arising from the fact that Christian religions are only the majority today, this demographic can change swiftly, especially at the regional level.
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 6:51 AM
| link to this | reply
evolutionism is a religion
How do I know? Because evolutionists will not tolerate being contradicted. My daughter got sentenced to detention hall one time for respectfully asking questions in regard to evolution. The only thing she did wrong was questioning the "religious dogma" of evolutionism, which constitutes "heresy" in our school system.
posted by
redwood
on June 6, 2006 at 6:33 AM
| link to this | reply
yeah
they say they're right and you're wrong
nothing to back that up
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 6, 2006 at 6:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - then of course there is the question of which Gid or version of
God is responsible for Intelligent Design.
The bible thumpers want it to be their God but what of those within the same school systems that do not subscribe to the Christian version of God? Are they to merely accept the Christian version because demographics alone make it more popular? What happens when the demographic shifts within any given school system? Now we have a situation where teaching the Christian version of God has been instituted within the curriculum and is being taught to the children of families that are of other religions. This of course is exactly what the bible thumpers are after.
In seeing some of the other posts here on this subject, it is little wonder that no one is able to refute what I am saying. Most people attempting to sell this idea are doing it solely from a position of emotion, with little in the way of facts to back what they say. The unfortunate result of the grassroots movement to have ID considered as a legitimate theory and taught alongside of the theory of evolution is that it is a regressive mindset. Religion, in furtherance of its agenda has pitted itself against science just like this is the 19th century all over again.
posted by
gomedome
on June 6, 2006 at 6:19 AM
| link to this | reply
i think you will notice
the intelligent design crowd hasn't presented evidence for their hypothesis
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 6, 2006 at 5:34 AM
| link to this | reply