NationStates Jolt Archive

I have read the majority of the posts on the evolution (and less i missed it ) the truth behind evolution( in my opinion ) is that evolution in itself is a religion. i know you sciencetist(forgive myspelling) will diagree with me though that is what i believe, for even if evolution can be followed all the way to the begining of the universe, there is only one thing left....a leap of faith, a person's belief in a system, wheather life started on its own ..or the creator created the universe and life .... that is my belief

Correction. Evolution theory has only meaning if applies to life. It doesn't explain how that life came to be nor how the universe came to be, the theory doesn't purport to answer those questions. There are two groups of people who generally conflate all those different groups together, one is the scientific illiterate, the other are creatonists/IDSists (difference is that the first group will generally accept the correction while the second group will ignore it).

Then you have the problem of the Christian scientists that accept evolution theory as a fact since it doesn't contradict God creating life. You just accused those scientists to worship a false idol.

I have read the majority of the posts on the evolution (and less i missed it ) the truth behind evolution( in my opinion ) is that evolution in itself is a religion. i know you sciencetist(forgive myspelling) will diagree with me though that is what i believe, for even if evolution can be followed all the way to the begining of the universe, there is only one thing left....a leap of faith, a person's belief in a system, wheather life started on its own ..or the creator created the universe and life .... that is my beliefWell, that's the nice thing about evolution. It has nothing to do with where life came from. It talks about how life developed. We have evidence for how life developed. We have little, if any, evidence for how life came to being. That doesn't negate the fact that evolution occurred, though.

Quite interesting was a TV programme over here in the UK tonight *checks clock... no it was last night, it's now tomorrow morning* from a guy who was a bit 'hardball anti-God', arguing that all religion leads to undesirable fanaticisim, and with quite a few good points.
The show was called Root of all Evil? and the presenter was Prof. Richard Dawkins, the biologist of The Selfish Gene fame. He's not a bit hardball anti-God, he's solid-rock anti-God :)

He was a bit pointed, though, and I'm not entirely sure the editing of the people he was talking to was unbiased by his hardline hard-atheistic POV (I'm more a soft-atheistic/agnostic sort of person, for reference) and so I felt he was a bit unfair (if not technically correct) to the person he interviewed at Lourdes, when the "80-odd confirmed miracles out of umpteen-thousand attendeed per year for many decades isn't really statistically significant, is it" point was made
What's unfair about it? It is a crucial point. If the spontaneous-recovery rate of those who go to Lourdes is not statistically significant, and/or no greater than the spontaneous-recovery rate of everyone else, then the Lourdes claim of miracle cures is a sham. From a study I saw a few years ago, the reality is that the recovery rate at Lourdes is less than the average.
and he probably meant to be antagnostic when the first thing he said to $famous_chaplain (reputed to have the ear of Dubya, as well as the mouth of God) about his service was "Very impressive, reminded me of Neuremburg". For this reason, I feel he was being a bit over-the-top, though he did report some rather OTT responses back ("You're calling my children monkeys!") that sound like an existing resentment.
The pastor was Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The Neuremburg comment was treated lightly, but Haggard then went on to accuse Dawkins and other scientists of arrogance, while himself arrogantly spouting absolute drivel about a subject he obviously doesn't understand. How Dawkins resisted the temptation to punch the smarmy bastard is beyond me!

After the interview, as Dawkins and his camera crew were packing their car to leave, Haggard drove up to them, demanded that they get off his land (which they were doing anyway) and threatened to take and destroy their film. Don't you just love sweet, open-minded, peace-loving Christian goodness! :)

But then he went to visit a Jew-converted-to-Islam in the Palestinian territories (if I understand the situation correctly) and he didn't even finish saying something like "Well, I'm an atheist, but could you tell me..." to instantly get rebuked by the attitude "I hate atheists, they are the problem in the world, it is because of you that etc, etc".
I'm not sure who's more dangerous in the long run - the Muslim guy, with his blantant and unmistakable message of hatred, or Haggard, with his more subtle and disingenous manipulationon of emotions and arguments.

Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?



Because its the only explanation we have that is remotely plausible

Evolution and Science may not have *all* the answers at present, but at least its better then answering with "god did it" :rolleyes:

Since when was science a religion :p religions set down how you should live your life and unless I'm very much mistaken the theory of evolution doesn't do that

Quite interesting was a TV programme over here in the UK tonight *checks clock... no it was last night, it's now tomorrow morning* from a guy who was a bit 'hardball anti-God', arguing that all religion leads to undesirable fanaticisim, and with quite a few good points.The show was called Root of all Evil? and the presenter was Prof. Richard Dawkins, the biologist of The Selfish Gene fame. He's not a bit hardball anti-God, he's solid-rock anti-God :)Shhhh... I thought that mentioning his name might antagonise certain quarters... ne'er mind, though... ;)

(Also, methinks it's unlikely that the programme'll be broadcast in the US without some concession or other.)

He was a bit pointed, though, and I'm not entirely sure the editing of the people he was talking to was unbiased by his hardline hard-atheistic POV (I'm more a soft-atheistic/agnostic sort of person, for reference) and so I felt he was a bit unfair (if not technically correct) to the person he interviewed at Lourdes, when the "80-odd confirmed miracles out of umpteen-thousand attendeed per year for many decades isn't really statistically significant, is it" point was madeWhat's unfair about it? It is a crucial point. If the spontaneous-recovery rate of those who go to Lourdes is not statistically significant, and/or no greater than the spontaneous-recovery rate of everyone else, then the Lourdes claim of miracle cures is a sham. From a study I saw a few years ago, the reality is that the recovery rate at Lourdes is less than the average.I know, but I'm perhaps too sensitive to the feelings of perhaps the nicest pro-God interviewee they ended up showing. Or maybe I shouldn't be. I wonder how many trips to Lourdes result in an untimely death of a "weakening but would last longer, quite comfortably, without all the fuss" ill-person. (And, as Dawkins says, the possibility of catching something from the pool and making conditions worse.)


and he probably meant to be antagnostic when the first thing he said to $famous_chaplain (reputed to have the ear of Dubya, as well as the mouth of God) about his service was "Very impressive, reminded me of Neuremburg". For this reason, I feel he was being a bit over-the-top, though he did report some rather OTT responses back ("You're calling my children monkeys!") that sound like an existing resentment.
The pastor was Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The Neuremburg comment was treated lightly, but Haggard then went on to accuse Dawkins and other scientists of arrogance, while himself arrogantly spouting absolute drivel about a subject he obviously doesn't understand. How Dawkins resisted the temptation to punch the smarmy bastard is beyond me!Yes. By now it was obvious (having originally completely forgotten/ignored who it was doing the show) that there might be a slight bias in the editing, so I was trying to be generous, but Haggard truly appeared to be a smarmy git in front of his 'flock' and a pretentious tw*t in the direct interview (not to mention nothing less than an ignorant redneck by the "children/monkeys" comment unfilmed but reported).


I'm not sure who's more dangerous in the long run - the Muslim guy, with his blantant and unmistakable message of hatred, or Haggard, with his more subtle and disingenous manipulationon of emotions and arguments.I was going to say that it was the former, if the Islamic-convert had had a weapon at hand, but then realised that, in the Land Of The 'Free', the latter would probably have a gun, or (if not) his heavies, and could easily have been pushed to attempt some 'proactive self-defence', the way his face contorted up during the interview.

First evolution is biology not physics.

Second, your list is too long to answer everything. But things like eyes and whales have been studied in depth. The links of the various steps have been dug up.

I recommend you go to the library and look up the National Geographic from November 2004 that had the cover "Was Darwin Wrong?" It will answer most of the questions listed

Oh yeah. I believe matter came from the collapse of a 4d enviornment(big bang). And if you want the proof...well partial proof of why that happened, go learn physics.

And as for the bees which is a common argument from ID peeps.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060110/sc_space/scientistsfinallyfigureouthowbeesfly

Shhhh... I thought that mentioning his name might antagonise certain quarters... ne'er mind, though... ;)

(Also, methinks it's unlikely that the programme'll be broadcast in the US without some concession or other.)
If people get antagonized by hearing his name, without listening to what he has to say, then they have a problem!

I think you're right that the show is unlikely to be shown in the US. If it was to be shown by one of the major networks, I expect they would face protests and complaints from fundamentalist groups who don't seem to understand the concept or value of free speech.

I know, but I'm perhaps too sensitive to the feelings of perhaps the nicest pro-God interviewee they ended up showing. Or maybe I shouldn't be. I wonder how many trips to Lourdes result in an untimely death of a "weakening but would last longer, quite comfortably, without all the fuss" ill-person. (And, as Dawkins says, the possibility of catching something from the pool and making conditions worse.)
One of the criticisms which can be levelled at Dawkins is that he tends to concentrate on religious extremes (a moderate Anglican bishop might say "yes, but most of us aren't like that"), so I think it's important to his stance that he demonstrates the problems with religion's nice, moderate and apparently caring side too. He didn't abuse or rant at the priest, and I don't see why anyone should be exempt from having what they believe or do challenged in a civil and polite manner.

Translation: You guys are wrong. You are a Religion. Nothing you can say will ever change my mind.
Proof that evolution is wrong, the discreditting (scientifically, not just insulting it) of the principles evolution is based on or proof (or at least some kind of evidence) that God did it would change the minds of evolutionists, because science is not based on the principle of coming up with a theory, retrospectively trying to prove it and then defending it to the hilt as a religious standpoint is. Claiming that evolution is a religion because its proponents dont "admit" that they are wrong when face with misleading and incorrect challenges is like saying maths is a religion because mathematicians refuse to "admit" that 1+1 doesnt equal 2 just because you say it doesnt.

"Evolutionists"? Is that what we are being called now? Good grief.

Science is not some new-age competing religion with an agenda to bring down Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. Science is the art of understanding, nothing more. It is the desire to learn about the universe around us and apply the knowlege to make the lives of all a little bit better.

The questions on the first page are meant to prove science cannot answer all the questions and as such cannot be relied upon. On the contrary - Like I said earlier, science isn't a religion and unlike a religion isn't expected to have all the answers. Science is based upon human understanding, and no human being has an amount of knowledge that can only be described as "divine". Religion can answer everything, I admit - but the answers it provides aren't always accurate. And like many others out there, I believe in God and still hold science in high-esteem. And you know what? I can believe in the big guy upstairs and love science because science never said there is no God, only that there is no scientific proof. In other words, the jury is out....probably forever. I refuse to believe that the entire universe is the result of some mathmatical probability, but I also refuse to believe that God wants us to stop asking "why?" and let him hold our hand all the way to Armaggedon -which will surely happen if we turn our backs on science and go back to the good old days of book burning and crusades.

Sorry for the rant and covering old ground.