Idiopathic Joker
Moderator
Evolution is a much better explanation that some magic genie snapping his fingers and now we have a human
alissowack
New member
I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.
alissowack
New member
ohhhla;5550183 said:
The creationists are not at odds with what evolution means...just what it is associated with. Creationists say that God created everything as opposed to "random changes and natural selection"...which is attached to the term evolution.
Evolution is a fact. Just as atoms and the earth revolving around the sun are facts. While some creationist will not accept any evidence the amount of evidence supporting evolution is similar to the amount support atoms and the heliocentric solar system. That is there is such an overwhelming amount that to not accept evolution is either a perversion of logic or an act of genuine ignorance.
Therefore I do not believe it is inappropriate to ask religion to accept basic reality.
Therefore I do not believe it is inappropriate to ask religion to accept basic reality.
There is certainly a lack of consensus in the general public but there is virtually none in science.
If someone encountered a religion that stated atoms were a myth and that living matter is special and different from other matter most people would think the religion was a little nuts. An atom of carbon is the same if it is in a lump of coal or in the living tissue of an organism. It is just part of a molecule that is organized differently. Religion's that deny basic reality should be met with derision.
At the point we are now the amount of scientific support for evolution makes the denial of it illogical.
If someone encountered a religion that stated atoms were a myth and that living matter is special and different from other matter most people would think the religion was a little nuts. An atom of carbon is the same if it is in a lump of coal or in the living tissue of an organism. It is just part of a molecule that is organized differently. Religion's that deny basic reality should be met with derision.
At the point we are now the amount of scientific support for evolution makes the denial of it illogical.
I take science as explaining Gods work. That was some of the original purposes from Newton and before. Some think if he didn't believe he could have gone further. We all notice things adapt or die. I'm thinking nothing was created just to die off quickly so we have some things to help us adapt but why did no other animal become real competition for humans
Yes I am biased. Biased is not intrinsically wrong. No one would complain about a bias towards justice or fair play. The overwhelming evidence of evolution produces my bias.
There is no scientific support for intelligent design. In fact ID has yet to produce a cohesive theory to even test. While there exists organizations that support ID these are political lobbying groups rather than research groups.
In Kitzmiller v Dover the judge stated in his findings, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."
There is no scientific support for intelligent design. In fact ID has yet to produce a cohesive theory to even test. While there exists organizations that support ID these are political lobbying groups rather than research groups.
In Kitzmiller v Dover the judge stated in his findings, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."
alissowack
New member
@whar. Knowing what the evidences are doesn't make you biased. It's this assumption that ID's only goal is to promote a particular religious belief that makes you biased. It's no doubt that there are people out there that do think that because ID is more convincing, that it means they can enforce religious ideas, but ID isn't attempting to do that. Just as there are arguments for evolution there are also counter-arguments. If evolution is wrong on some instances then it should be addressed and not downplayed because a mere discomfort of giving the religious an edge. Proving that evolution wrong doesn't imply that the religious are right.
