NationStates Jolt Archive

I often see threads on various message boards, presenting some viewpoint which pits Darwin's theory of evolution against the theory of intelligent design. As if, one of the two is true and the other is false. Most arguments between ET supporters and ID proponents, will quickly degenerate into this fallacy of a notion.

I have always wondered, how the ID believers can justify the premise that ID negates ET, and how supposedly "scientific" minds who endorse ET, can ignore the possibility of an original creator? Isn't it possible that "God" or whoever Intelligently Designed us, might have used evolution as the tool to create? Isn't it possible that some intelligent force could have played a role in making evolution possible? Is it possible that we don't know all of the answers regarding our origin, and if this is the case, we can't possibly know anything for certain? Isn't that exactly what the scientific method teaches us, to examine all possibilities?

I happen to believe in both, Creationism and Evolution. Nothing in Darwin's theory proposes an answer for how we originated, only a theory for how we evolved once we did originate. Nothing in religious philosophy or teachings indicates that God didn't also create Evolution, so it is completely possible that both theories are true. It is also completely possible that neither theory is true. We may have originated from an alien science experiment!

I can't understand the closed-minded nature of those who want to debate Evolution vs. Creationism, as if those are the only two choices and only one is true. To make such arguments, from the ET standpoint, defies the very nature of the scientific method, which basically says that anything is possible and nothing is "proven" or "disproved" through science. It also flies in the face of religious doctrine to assume you know how God created us, and deny any other possible answer.

The conclusion I have reached is, those who will defiantly argue in favor or against ID or ET, are radical extremists. They have a hidden agenda, a cause and motivation behind what they espouse. Rather than objectively admitting that they could be wrong, and there could be a completely different explanation for our origin than we can even imagine, they had rather wage this war against the opposing viewpoint, because of the greater hidden motive. And the kicker is, you will never change a radicals mind.

I suggest you look up the definition of "intelligent design" and "creationism" and stop using them interchangeably.

Moreover, they are not "compatable". Intelligent design says that things were designed in a specific way. Evolution says things came about through random mutations and selective forces. Either things are random, or they are designed, not both.

There are problems on both sides. On one side you have the problem with the probability of such an event occurring, and on the other side you have Omphalos Hypothesis issue.

I happen to believe in both, Creationism and Evolution. Nothing in Darwin's theory proposes an answer for how we originated, only a theory for how we evolved once we did originate. Nothing in religious philosophy or teachings indicates that God didn't also create Evolution, so it is completely possible that both theories are true.


I agree with you right here. I am a Theistic Evolutionist. My religion indirectly teaching evolution (look at the Avatara of Vishnu).

FTW

Well, those who believe in ET have been shown to pay drastically less in phone bills.

God only knows.

People love to have a sense of moral superiority, whether it comes from the religious cliques who flog the Bible or the pretentious know-it-alls who flog science.

I've always thought that the why and how of being here is irrelevant when compared to what we decide to do with our time. Arguing forever about how we got the time to spend seems a shameful waste.

I suggest you look up the definition of "intelligent design" and "creationism" and stop using them interchangeably.

Moreover, they are not "compatable". Intelligent design says that things were designed in a specific way. Evolution says things came about through random mutations and selective forces. Either things are random, or they are designed, not both.

Even if the rules governing evolution were perhaps coded by a Divinity of some sort? That's what I've always thought. The Divine programs the laws of the universe into a colossal gathering of matter and BOOM, sets it off, and stands back while it does it's thing, and takes notes.

Even if the rules governing evolution were perhaps coded by a Divinity of some sort? That's what I've always thought. The Divine programs the laws of the universe into a colossal gathering of matter and BOOM, sets it off, and stands back while it does it's thing, and takes notes.

The problem is, the theory of intelligent design is not just that god said "let there be light!", it's more than that. ID says some things on the planet are so complex that they could not be produced randomly.

It's not simply god just seting the whole thing in motion from the beginning of the universe and watching. It's saying that the basic formations of life, in some degrees, are just too complex to be random.

So, either they are all random, or they are not. Those two views are not compatable.

I happen to believe in both, Creationism and Evolution.

no, you don't. creationism explicitly denies evolution. you cannot be a creationist who believe in the theory of evolution. you could believe in theistic evolution, however.

Nothing in Darwin's theory proposes an answer for how we originated, only a theory for how we evolved once we did originate.

well, it rules out certain possible origins (famously, each of the various the biblical accounts), as it includes common descent within the theory. but yeah, hypothetically, any being, specially created or otherwise, that made imperfect copies of itself would from that point on undergo evolution.

Nothing in religious philosophy or teachings indicates that God didn't also create Evolution

this is clearly false, unless you are severely restricting the domain of 'religious philosophy and teachings'.

The problem is, the theory of intelligent design is not just that god said "let there be light!", it's more than that. ID says some things on the planet are so complex that they could not be produced randomly.

It's not simply god just seting the whole thing in motion from the beginning of the universe and watching. It's saying that the basic formations of life, in some degrees, are just too complex to be random.

So, either they are all random, or they are not. Those two views are not compatable.

I never mentioned ID, and that's because "irreducible complexity" is horseshit.

All I'm saying is that what looks random to us now could possibly be discovered to be a pattern at some point in the future when we can see more than we can see now. I think absolutist positions on something as cosmologically huge as the origin of everything are themselves willfully ignorant.

I never mentioned ID, and that's because "irreducible complexity" is horseshit.

All I'm saying is that what looks random to us now could possibly be discovered to be a pattern at some point in the future when we can see more than we can see now. I think absolutist positions on something as cosmologically huge as the origin of everything are themselves willfully ignorant.

I'm unsure who it is that keeps making "absolute statements". I think it's a red herring used by creationists to try to discredit evolution.

Evolution, frankly, is the best explanation for the data we have now. Science doesn't try to prove, science merely tries to explain, in the best ways possible. Science doesn't care what might be known some day. To start with a presumption and then say "well, we might be able to prove it some day" isn't science, it's the antithesis of science.

Science looks at what we know, now, and tries to explain it, as best we can.

And right now, knowing what we know now, evolution is the best explanation.

I'm unsure who it is that keeps making "absolute statements". I think it's a red herring used by creationists to try to discredit evolution.

Evolution, frankly, is the best explanation for the data we have now. Science doesn't try to prove, science merely tries to explain, in the best ways possible. Science doesn't care what might be known some day. To start with a presumption and then say "well, we might be able to prove it some day" isn't science, it's the antithesis of science.

Science looks at what we know, now, and tries to explain it, as best we can.

And right now, knowing what we know now, evolution is the best explanation.

"Best"? That sounds mighty subjective...and absolutist. But I'd rather not argue about that (well I'm sorry, but you didn't PAY!" [/Python]).

You needn't explain science to me, I'm not a creationist. I'm a "it just doesn't matter"-ist.

I personally don't believe in any "divine intervention" by some omniscent being has any thing to do with how we got here but, being the scientific person I am, I can't deny the possiblity of such an event.Denying the possibiliy would be very illogical!

I personally don't believe in any "divine intervention" by some omniscent being has any thing to do with how we got here but, being the scientific person I am, I can't deny the possiblity of such an event.Denying the possibiliy would be very illogical!

A fine point.

However, I became aware that a purely scientific explanation for some things evolutionary wouldn't hold water. For example -- when I hear four or more parts sung in tune in a piece of a cappella choral music, I get a chill and tingles down my spine.

What is the possible evolutionary purpose for that? I get the same feeling when I see riotous sunsets or when I'm driving to the ocean and I first catch sight of it. There is no evolutionary or scientific need for me to feel that way about music or geography.

It was that notion that made me understand that the Divine exists on some level. What it did not make me believe, and this is key, is that praying to it, at least in the way I am used to hearing prayers, has any effect whatsoever on what happens in my life. Yoga has opened my eyes to the nature of balance that karma presupposes, and I can see how thoughts held in mind can produce after their kind. And that's about where my spirituality ends: I am grateful to be alive and to continue living.

God only knows.

People love to have a sense of moral superiority, whether it comes from the religious cliques who flog the Bible or the pretentious know-it-alls who flog science.
I've always thought that the why and how of being here is irrelevant when compared to what we decide to do with our time. Arguing forever about how we got the time to spend seems a shameful waste.

Except science is predicated on demostrability, whereas the Bible is the Word of God because it says so right on the label.

no, you don't. creationism explicitly denies evolution. you cannot be a creationist who believe in the theory of evolution. you could believe in theistic evolution, however.


well, it rules out certain possible origins (famously, each of the various the biblical accounts), as it includes common descent within the theory. but yeah, hypothetically, any being, specially created or otherwise, that made imperfect copies of itself would from that point on undergo evolution.


this is clearly false, unless you are severely restricting the domain of 'religious philosophy and teachings'.

Creationism doesn't deny anything. It simply theorizes, we originated by creation of an intelligent designer. There is no distinction between ID and Creationism, it is the same thing in my opinion.

Darwin's theory, as well as ALL scientific theory, doesn't "rule out" any possibility, it is the very definition of the scientific method. If you are truly going to take a pure scientific view on this, you must include all possibility, and that includes the possibility of an intelligent designer (or creator).

If you are to objectively examine scientific evidence, you have to consider the inseparable connection mankind has with spirituality, and why this attribute has defied Darwin's theory of natural selection for the history of man as we know it. Animal behavior is always connected with purpose and need, no living thing does something for no fundamental reason, every behavioral characteristic is connected to a specific need of that creature, yet no one can explain why humans have worshiped since the inception of the species.

Again, nothing I have said is false. Show me the religious dogma which categorically refutes Darwin's theory of evolution? You can't because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the Bible, or any religious doctrine I have ever known of, says that evolution could not have possibly happened. Subsequently, nothing in Darwin's theory addresses the possibility that an intelligent designer put it all into motion originally.

From a purely pragmatic and analytical point of view, one must conclude that, in addition to either ET or ID, both theories could be true, or both theories could be false, and we will never know the true answer to the question.

Well Darwin's Theory of Evolution isn't perfect, but the nature of science is that as our knowledge develops so will our understanding and at this point Darwin's theory is the best scientific theory we have. I myself prefer it to some Bronze Age Judean myth thankyou very much.

Except science is predicated on demostrability, whereas the Bible is the Word of God because it says so right on the label.

There's that moral superiority I mentioned earlier, this time from the science end. Strange how after 25+ years of listening to and participating in this argument, both extremes sound the same.

All I know is what I observe, and I observe that those who choose the Word of God seem a hell of a lot happier on average than science-only folks. Demonstrations of faith are all around you.

It's about the yin and yang. Balance.

There are certainly some forms of creationist theories that are compatible with evolution, and some that aren’t; a rather obvious statement.

If anything, this thread, once again, shows that we must be careful of not equating ‘creationism’ with either ‘Christian creationism’ or ‘ID’.

A fine point.

However, I became aware that a purely scientific explanation for some things evolutionary wouldn't hold water. For example -- when I hear four or more parts sung in tune in a piece of a cappella choral music, I get a chill and tingles down my spine.

What is the possible evolutionary purpose for that? I get the same feeling when I see riotous sunsets or when I'm driving to the ocean and I first catch sight of it. There is no evolutionary or scientific need for me to feel that way about music or geography.

have you perhaps heard of the spandrels of san marco?

Even if the rules governing evolution were perhaps coded by a Divinity of some sort? That's what I've always thought. The Divine programs the laws of the universe into a colossal gathering of matter and BOOM, sets it off, and stands back while it does it's thing, and takes notes.
Then really is it not still "Designed"

The process may be long and convoluted but if he laid things down to happen in a certain order for a pre-described goal is it still not designed?

A fine point.

However, I became aware that a purely scientific explanation for some things evolutionary wouldn't hold water. For example -- when I hear four or more parts sung in tune in a piece of a cappella choral music, I get a chill and tingles down my spine.

What is the possible evolutionary purpose for that? I get the same feeling when I see riotous sunsets or when I'm driving to the ocean and I first catch sight of it. There is no evolutionary or scientific need for me to feel that way about music or geography.

Just because you haven't tried to understand the evolutionary advantages of enjoying music or seeing certain visuals doesn't mean that God must have put it there for you.

The idea that bird song would be of any use to birds was quite alien before about 1800.

It took noting that bird song is mostly done by males and mostly done in the breeding season to come to the conclusion that it's a form of attraction, and that may very well be the reason why we appreciate music - hence 80% of songs are about love.

have you perhaps heard of the spandrels of san marco?

I have not. Enlighten me (or at least link me)?

Then really is it not still "Designed"

The process may be long and convoluted but if he laid things down to happen in a certain order for a pre-described goal is it still not designed?

Why must design imply a goal? It seems to me that if you create something as complex and infinitely variable as the universe, you need some outrageously subtle rules in order to keep any intelligence that evolves from looking behind the curtain too soon. I stand behind my "big bang was hitting the start button on a grand experiment" suggestion. To quote Kevin Smith's Dogma, I don't know, but I have a pretty good idea.

However, I became aware that a purely scientific explanation for some things evolutionary wouldn't hold water. For example -- when I hear four or more parts sung in tune in a piece of a cappella choral music, I get a chill and tingles down my spine.

What is the possible evolutionary purpose for that? I get the same feeling when I see riotous sunsets or when I'm driving to the ocean and I first catch sight of it. There is no evolutionary or scientific need for me to feel that way about music or geography.

...actually, I've been following some very fascinating research suggesting that there may be evolutionary benefits to musicality, although said research is still far too undeveloped to be remotely conclusive. Cool stuff, though. :)

Creationism doesn't deny anything. It simply theorizes, we originated by creation of an intelligent designer. There is no distinction between ID and Creationism, it is the same thing in my opinion.

Then your opinion is wrong, they are distinctly different things.

Darwin's theory, as well as ALL scientific theory, doesn't "rule out" any possibility, it is the very definition of the scientific method. If you are truly going to take a pure scientific view on this, you must include all possibility, and that includes the possibility of an intelligent designer (or creator).

No, to take a pure scientific view of things, one need only consider that which are valid scientific theories. Creator is not scientific. If we must include ALL possibilities, not only do we include a designer, but the flying spaghetti monster, magical flying pink unicorns, thor, and that this, in fact, the matrix.

If you are to objectively examine scientific evidence, you have to consider the inseparable connection mankind has with spirituality, and why this attribute has defied Darwin's theory of natural selection for the history of man as we know it. Animal behavior is always connected with purpose and need, no living thing does something for no fundamental reason, every behavioral characteristic is connected to a specific need of that creature, yet no one can explain why humans have worshiped since the inception of the species.

Bullshit they can't. There are many valid psychological, sociological, and antrhopological reasons for faith and worship, none of which have anything to do with the actual existance of a diety.

Again, nothing I have said is false. Show me the religious dogma which categorically refutes Darwin's theory of evolution? You can't because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the Bible, or any religious doctrine I have ever known of, says that evolution could not have possibly happened.

"the earth was created in 6 days, including all animals on it. That is directly in contrast with evolutionary theory.

Subsequently, nothing in Darwin's theory addresses the possibility that an intelligent designer put it all into motion originally.

That's not what "intelligent design" means. Really, if you're going to discuss something, have enough self respect to actually ensure you know what you're talking about.

Oh wait, look who I'm talking to

I have not. Enlighten me (or at least link me)?



Why must design imply a goal? It seems to me that if you create something as complex and infinitely variable as the universe, you need some outrageously subtle rules in order to keep any intelligence that evolves from looking behind the curtain too soon. I stand behind my "big bang was hitting the start button on a grand experiment" suggestion. To quote Kevin Smith's Dogma, I don't know, but I have a pretty good idea.

Possible if you are playing with a non omniscient god , in that case the outcome is not created even if the start is. Does not really fit with an omniscient god point of view as I can see anyways

There's that moral superiority I mentioned earlier, this time from the science end. Strange how after 25+ years of listening to and participating in this argument, both extremes sound the same.

All I know is what I observe, and I observe that those who choose the Word of God seem a hell of a lot happier on average than science-only folks. Demonstrations of faith are all around you.

It's about the yin and yang. Balance.

Sorry, but that's crap.

I stand behind my "big bang was hitting the start button on a grand experiment" suggestion. To quote Kevin Smith's Dogma, I don't know, but I have a pretty good idea.

That's fine, but that's not design

Just because you haven't tried to understand the evolutionary advantages of enjoying music or seeing certain visuals doesn't mean that God must have put it there for you.

The idea that bird song would be of any use to birds was quite alien before about 1800.

It took noting that bird song is mostly done by males and mostly done in the breeding season to come to the conclusion that it's a form of attraction, and that may very well be the reason why we appreciate music - hence 80% of songs are about love.

Missing the point. Please don't put words in my mouth -- I never said anything about God, particularly a Biblical one. I mentioned a more abstract concept I call the Divine, to which I don't pray, and about which there is no dogma, catechism or other religious trapping.

I see no point in researching my somatic and emotional reactions to what I perceive as beauty because people far more lettered and intelligent than I in fields like Philosophy (Aesthetics), Psychology, Physics (Acoustics) and many more are already probably researching it.

And honestly, I'm a choir director -- comparing birdsong used to attract mates to Benjamin Britten's Hymn to St. Cecelia (for example) isn't going to fly (pun intended). You cannot tell me that there is some evolutionary force at work that sends shivers down my back, neck and shoulders when I hear a well-sung progression. Of what possible use could that be?

80% of all songs are about love? No.

You cannot tell me that there is some evolutionary force at work that sends shivers down my back, neck and shoulders when I hear a well-sung progression. Of what possible use could that be?

Who said everything has to have a use? If you think that every single characteristic we have must be in some way useful you sorely misunderstand evolutionary theory.

I personally don't believe in any "divine intervention" by some omniscent being has any thing to do with how we got here but, being the scientific person I am, I can't deny the possiblity of such an event.Denying the possibiliy would be very illogical!

Well, at least you understand what science is and how to use the scientific method. You are one up on many of your counterparts who will simply retort that ET "refutes" ID or "disproves" Creationism. My point was not to defend either theory or debate one against the other, rather to shed light on the truth, that both ET and ID are theories, and one doesn't necessarily negate the other.

When I say I believe in Creationism, it is because of scientific analysis of the information available. That may sound odd to some, but it is honest. There are too many unanswered questions to presume ID invalid, and too many things that can't be explained if ID is assumed invalid.

Albert Einstein said "God doesn't roll the dice." He certainly recognized the possibility of an intelligent designer, and felt it was virtually impossible for the laws of physics and the universe to be as they were by complete chance. I tend to agree with Einstein on this.

That's fine, but that's not design

Thou sayest.

I never said it WAS design. Why are you so keen on making me out to be an ID supporter? I'm clearly not. I even said it was "horseshit" earlier. I'm more along the lines of uninvolved programmer + "it just doesn't matter"-ism.

Sorry, but that's crap.

You're clearly not sorry at all, otherwise why use such pejorative language? I don't care if you disagree, but I'll thank you to disagree with respect when that is what I have shown this forum.

Very well, then, why is it crap?

Possible if you are playing with a non omniscient god , in that case the outcome is not created even if the start is. Does not really fit with an omniscient god point of view as I can see anyways

Which is why it doesn't matter. What is the point of finding out, anyway? Will there be something we can do about it once we know?

...actually, I've been following some very fascinating research suggesting that there may be evolutionary benefits to musicality, although said research is still far too undeveloped to be remotely conclusive. Cool stuff, though. :)

It sounds cool. Far cooler than the marked defensiveness being flung at me for merely suggesting some middle ground here. Like I said, the extremes on any issue tend to be a bit harsh, and folks enjoy feeling superior to others. Fine by me, but I sleep just fine with the uncertainty.

Who said everything has to have a use? If you think that every single characteristic we have must be in some way useful you sorely misunderstand evolutionary theory.

I see, so there's no weeding out of traits that don't enhance or extend the species?

I'll again ask, what's so hot about understanding evolutionary theory in the first place? Folks, we're HERE, okay? Unless your particular lot in life is to research this topic, why get so worked up about it?

Well, at least you understand what science is and how to use the scientific method. You are one up on many of your counterparts who will simply retort that ET "refutes" ID or "disproves" Creationism. My point was not to defend either theory or debate one against the other, rather to shed light on the truth, that both ET and ID are theories, and one doesn't necessarily negate the other.

When I say I believe in Creationism, it is because of scientific analysis of the information available. That may sound odd to some, but it is honest. There are too many unanswered questions to presume ID invalid, and too many things that can't be explained if ID is assumed invalid.

Albert Einstein said "God doesn't roll the dice." He certainly recognized the possibility of an intelligent designer, and felt it was virtually impossible for the laws of physics and the universe to be as they were by complete chance. I tend to agree with Einstein on this.

Again, I suggest you look up what intelligent design actually means before attempting to discuss it.

Intelligent design and evolution are directly contradictory, because that's what intelligent design is. It states that certain things could not be a product of natural selection only.

Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, because that's what intelligent design means. I really suggest you look up your terms before using them, you won't look QUITE so foolish.

Still pretty fucking foolish, because, well, that's a given with you, but not quite so much.

The difference between the two, and how close they are to the "truth", is a matter of how much research goes into a "theory".
Evolution is based upon almost 200 years of scientific research. Actual science.
Creationism is based upon a desire for a creator.

One bases a theory on hard work, and discovery.
The other has no basis.

Creationism doesn't deny anything. It simply theorizes, we originated by creation of an intelligent designer. There is no distinction between ID and Creationism, it is the same thing in my opinion.

you need to look up some terms, then

Darwin's theory, as well as ALL scientific theory, doesn't "rule out" any possibility, it is the very definition of the scientific method. If you are truly going to take a pure scientific view on this, you must include all possibility, and that includes the possibility of an intelligent designer (or creator).

no. frankly, that's just stupid. a theory must rule out all sorts of things if it is to be a theory at all. it must make predictions about what is and what is not. if those things it ruled out actually exist, then the theory is wrong.

If you are to objectively examine scientific evidence, you have to consider the inseparable connection mankind has with spirituality, and why this attribute has defied Darwin's theory of natural selection for the history of man as we know it.

i know at least several very very plausible evolutionary explanations for feelings of spirituality - both adaptationist and otherwise. perhaps you would care to read about them?

Again, nothing I have said is false. Show me the religious dogma which categorically refutes Darwin's theory of evolution? You can't because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the Bible, or any religious doctrine I have ever known of, says that evolution could not have possibly happened.

christian fundamentalist religious dogma flat out denies that evolution happened. you honestly can't be claiming to have never heard this, can you?

Thou sayest.

I never said it WAS design. Why are you so keen on making me out to be an ID supporter? I'm clearly not. I even said it was "horseshit" earlier. I'm more along the lines of uninvolved programmer + "it just doesn't matter"-ism.

Because that's what the topic is about? The topic was about whether ID and creationism were mutually exclusive with evolution. They clearly are, by definition.

Now, belief in a diety is not mutually exclusive with evolution, and I suspect that's what the OP is trying, poorly, to say.

But ID is a very specific thing, it has a very specific meaning, and that meaning is directly in contradiction with evolutionary theory. Now if you believe in a diety, but not in ID, then to you there may well be no contradiction, and that's fine. But as to the actual topic, as to whether ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, they are.

I have not. Enlighten me (or at least link me)?

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Gould_Lewontin_1979.shtml

basic idea - not everything that evolves is necessarily adaptationist

I see, so there's no weeding out of traits that don't enhance or extend the species?

Yes and no. There is evolutionary pressure by natural selection to do so, however not all negative traits are necessarily weeded out. Just because something "has no use" it does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary theory. Lots of shit has no use.

Evolutionary theory only posits three things:

1) mutations occur
2) those mutations can be harmful, benefitial, or neutral
3) those with benefitial mutations, are more likely to survive and pass on that mutation

It doesn't say EVERY benefitial mutation will be passed on. It doesn't say NO harmful mutation will be passed on. Clearly this is silly. It only says that benefitial mutations are more likely to be passed on, and that, over time, and natural selection, the accumulation of good mutations can result in a diversion of species.

That's it

Because that's what the topic is about? The topic was about whether ID and creationism were mutually exclusive with evolution. They clearly are, by definition.

Now, belief in a diety is not mutually exclusive with evolution, and I suspect that's what the OP is trying, poorly, to say.

But ID is a very specific thing, it has a very specific meaning, and that meaning is directly in contradiction with evolutionary theory. Now if you believe in a diety, but not in ID, then to you there may well be no contradiction, and that's fine. But as to the actual topic, as to whether ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive, they are.

Completely agreed, and excellently put.

I don't believe anything that could be a deity of such scope would be personifiable to human perception. Hence the absence of "God" in my personal philosophy.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Gould_Lewontin_1979.shtml

basic idea - not everything that evolves is necessarily adaptationist

Skimmed it -- I'll give it a thorough going over later -- it seems quite expansive. I look forward to having the time to peruse it with greater attention. Thank you.

You're clearly not sorry at all, otherwise why use such pejorative language? I don't care if you disagree, but I'll thank you to disagree with respect when that is what I have shown this forum.

Very well, then, why is it crap?


Respect is earned; not given.

As to your statement being crap; it's simple really.

Anecdotal evidence used for a global statement.

My observations have shown me that more miserable sods have been those that chose the Word of God.

As to bird song versus human music. Different strokes. Many people never tire of listening to birds and yet many people get tired of listening to choral works.

I see, so there's no weeding out of traits that don't enhance or extend the species?


No not really. You might want to read up on Mendal.

Missing the point. Please don't put words in my mouth -- I never said anything about God, particularly a Biblical one. I mentioned a more abstract concept I call the Divine, to which I don't pray, and about which there is no dogma, catechism or other religious trapping.

I see no point in researching my somatic and emotional reactions to what I perceive as beauty because people far more lettered and intelligent than I in fields like Philosophy (Aesthetics), Psychology, Physics (Acoustics) and many more are already probably researching it.

And honestly, I'm a choir director -- comparing birdsong used to attract mates to Benjamin Britten's Hymn to St. Cecelia (for example) isn't going to fly (pun intended). You cannot tell me that there is some evolutionary force at work that sends shivers down my back, neck and shoulders when I hear a well-sung progression. Of what possible use could that be?

80% of all songs are about love? No.

Take the time to read and learn (http://www-abc.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/users/ptodd/publications/wrntd97/wrntd97.pdf) then.

I'm a choir director

...this is a total and complete threadjack, but as a semi-professional choral singer who's looking into getting an MFA in choral conducting at some point, I'm bound to be interested in fellow choral geeks. What sort of choir do you direct?

Respect is earned; not given.

As to your statement being crap; it's simple really.

Anecdotal evidence used evidence for a global statement.

My observations have shown me that more miserable sods have been those that chose the Word of God.

As to bird song versus human music. Different strokes. Many people never tire of listening to birds and yet many people get tired of listening to choral works.



No not really. You might want to read up on Mendal.

It's this kind of pedantic arrogance that leads reasonable people away from certain science-floggers.

It's a personal cosmology, jack, I'm perfectly free to use any evidence I care to in order to fashion my own Weltanschauung. If you've observed more sad-sack Goddies, then that's your world. Mine is different, therefore my view is different. Surely that's easy enough to understand without resorting to snarkiness? Seriously, some of you are acting like I've just wiped my ass with the original of On the Origin of Species. I assure you I haven't.

Bird song helps propagate many bird species (if not all of them). Choral music exists for its own sake. That's a world of difference, not different strokes. I never once mentioned a comparison of what humans would rather listen to, and your mentioning of that is disingenuous at best, and a sloppy attempt at refutation at worst.

...this is a total and complete threadjack, but as a semi-professional choral singer who's looking into getting an MFA in choral conducting at some point, I'm bound to be interested in fellow choral geeks. What sort of choir do you direct?

I direct a 70-voice "y'all come" Concert Choir, an auditioned ten-voice + rhythm section Vocal Jazz Ensemble (NO bleeding choreography), and a sixteen-voice auditioned Chamber Choir, all at the University of Mary in Bismarck, ND (small, liberal-arts Benedictine-founded college). I also teach first-year music theory, second-year sight-singing/ear-training, Secondary Choral Methods, Choral Conducting and applied vocal jazz lessons.

Take the time to read and learn (http://www-abc.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/users/ptodd/publications/wrntd97/wrntd97.pdf) then.

No, perhaps it's you who should read. From the Introduction: "Why are there so many love songs on the radio?" I stopped reading there.

All songs ever written are all on the radio? No. You're welcome to try and pull another percentage figure out of thin air once you've included every song ever composed, whether written or passed down aurally by every singing culture that exists or ever existed.

Bird song helps propagate many bird species (if not all of them). Choral music exists for its own sake. That's a world of difference, not different strokes. I never once mentioned a comparison of what humans would rather listen to, and your mentioning of that is disingenuous at best, and a sloppy attempt at refutation at worst.

Ahh, but, what's to say that the genetic trait to produce music didn't exist in the genetic precursor to both birds and humans, and that we carry, as a result of shared ancestry, a similar genetic predisposition?

I direct a 70-voice "y'all come" Concert Choir, an auditioned ten-voice + rhythm section Vocal Jazz Ensemble (NO bleeding choreography), and a sixteen-voice auditioned Chamber Choir, all at the University of Mary in Bismarck, ND (small, liberal-arts Benedictine-founded college). I also teach first-year music theory, second-year sight-singing/ear-training, Secondary Choral Methods, Choral Conducting and applied vocal jazz lessons.

...so, in short, you pretty much have my dream job (well, barring things like "Broadway star" and "Nobel Prize winner," anyway). Sweet. :)

It's this kind of pedantic arrogance that leads reasonable people away from certain science-floggers.


Pssst. Details are important to science. That's why we don't believe the goddidit explanation for the unknown.

It's a personal cosmology, jack, I'm perfectly free to use any evidence I care to in order to fashion my own Weltanschauung.

You can offer what ever you like. Just be prepared to be told it's crap.

If you've observed more sad-sack Goddies, then that's your world. Mine is different, therefore my view is different. Surely that's easy enough to understand without resorting to snarkiness? Seriously, some of you are acting like I've just wiped my ass with the original of On the Origin of Species. I assure you I haven't.


Speaking of "snarkiness...."

Bird song helps propagate many bird species (if not all of them). Choral music exists for its own sake. That's a world of difference, not different strokes. I never once mentioned a comparison of what humans would rather listen to, and your mentioning of that is disingenuous at best, and a sloppy attempt at refutation at worst.

And that means nothing.

Music to some is static to others.

Hate to burst your bubble but many people don't care about choral works.

Then your opinion is wrong, they are distinctly different things.

No, they are the same exact thing. If you have some evidence to the contrary, it would be nice if you would show it rather than being belligerent and just proclaiming yourself right. "Creator" and "Intelligent Designer" are interchangeable nouns. Now, maybe you have a perception of the two being different in some way, if so, please indulge me! Otherwise, stop acting like you have made some point you haven't made.

No, to take a pure scientific view of things, one need only consider that which are valid scientific theories. Creator is not scientific. If we must include ALL possibilities, not only do we include a designer, but the flying spaghetti monster, magical flying pink unicorns, thor, and that this, in fact, the matrix.

Well, according to the Scientific Method of the Science I am familiar with, we must indeed entertain the possibility of flying spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns, especially if there is any suggested evidence to support such a theory. Can your science prove otherwise? Mine can't!

Bullshit they can't. There are many valid psychological, sociological, and antrhopological reasons for faith and worship, none of which have anything to do with the actual existance of a diety.

You can prove this? Please... do it!!! You can THEORIZE on why you THINK people worship! That is ALL you can do! Science does not propose an answer for this, it gives a theory, and one that is subject to scrutiny. Achom's Razor states that when you have two possibilities, the easiest explanation is most probable. The easiest explanation for why mankind worships, is because there is something greater than self which created us. Measure this against Darwin's theory of natural selection, which says that unneeded attributes evolve out of the species, yet humanity's connection to spirituality remains... hmmmmm??? Interesting!

"the earth was created in 6 days, including all animals on it. That is directly in contrast with evolutionary theory.

"Darwin says we came from monkeys and that is a direct contrast with God's word!" See how damn silly that sounds? You are taking out of context, a literal interpretation from the scriptures, and contrasting it with ET which you have deemed empirical. How long is a day in God's eyes? Perhaps a few million or billion years? An actual Roman Calendar day? A six-month Alaskan day? A typical revolution of the planet on it's axis, (which has changed dramatically over the history of the planet?) What IS a day?

That's not what "intelligent design" means. Really, if you're going to discuss something, have enough self respect to actually ensure you know what you're talking about.

Oh wait, look who I'm talking to

Intelligent Design means Designed by Intelligence, doesn't it? If not, I have been grossly misinformed all these years! I think the problem is, I DO know what I am talking about, and you can't really discuss it on my level, so you have to resort to these petty attempts to "refute" me by proclamation, rather than fact. Lookit buddy, it's really easy to get on the message board and spew hateful remarks and just blanket refute everything someone says! You've not done a whole heck of a lot here, except show everyone exactly what I pointed out in the OP, that those who will argue and pit the two theories against each other and refuse to accept any other possibility, are driven by an agenda and an underlying motive.

Ahh, but, what's to say that the genetic trait to produce music didn't exist in the genetic precursor to both birds and humans, and that we carry, as a result of shared ancestry, a similar genetic predisposition?

What's to say it? I don't know, but it could be the same thing that says that seems thin because you'd think that more progeny of that progenitor would be singers. Then again, I've never looked up just how many animals could be considered "singers". Is a howl a song?

Either way, it just doesn't matter.

...so, in short, you pretty much have my dream job (well, barring things like "Broadway star" and "Nobel Prize winner," anyway). Sweet. :)

I dunno, I think getting paid to know your part and follow the conductor sounds pretty sweet! Bit of advice -- if you can help it, the MM in Choral Conducting tends to get more respect than the MFA.

No, perhaps it's you who should read. From the Introduction: "Why are there so many love songs on the radio?" I stopped reading there.

All songs ever written are all on the radio? No. You're welcome to try and pull another percentage figure out of thin air once you've included every song ever composed, whether written or passed down aurally by every singing culture that exists or ever existed.

Well done, you're asking me to read having stated categorically that you refuse to read past the first paragraph due to finding something that provides you with an excuse not to challenge your own belief, because that's all it is, a belief that the causes for choral music and bird music cannot stem from the evolutionary force - a belief with no evidence and when challenged with contrary evidence, you do not seek enlightenment, you seek to avoid it.

No, they are the same exact thing. If you have some evidence to the contrary, it would be nice if you would show it rather than being belligerent and just proclaiming yourself right. “Creator” and “Intelligent Designer” are interchangeable nouns.

Intelligent Design means Designed by Intelligence, doesn’t it? If not, I have been grossly misinformed all these years!
‘Intelligent Designer’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ has taken on a specific meaning thanks to the efforts of certain American Christians. You yourself have quite rightly said that (certain forms of) creationism and evolution are not incompatible, but ‘Intelligent Design’ specifically refutes the theory of evolution. Thus, ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘creationism’ are not exactly the same, even if they do share very similar propositions.

‘Intelligent Design’ refutes some things that many forms of creationism hold to be true, and so we can’t say that the two refer to the same concept.

I dunno, I think getting paid to know your part and follow the conductor sounds pretty sweet! Bit of advice -- if you can help it, the MM in Choral Conducting tends to get more respect than the MFA.

Heh, well, it would be pretty sweet if they actually paid me enough that I didn't have to have a "real" job as well. :p

And thanks for the advice - I haven't really done a great deal of research on which degree I want yet, seeing as I'm unlikely to be able to afford to go back to grad school for at least a couple more years, so I've mostly been planning on the MFA by default.

Pssst. Details are important to science. That's why we don't believe the goddidit explanation for the unknown.

Psst -- neither do I.

And you're getting more and more intolerably pedantic and assumptive by the post.

You can offer what ever you like. Just be prepared to be told it's crap.

If that's the worst thing that happens to me, I'll consider my life charmed.

Speaking of "snarkiness...."

Uh...how is using a colorful metaphor to express concern that I'm being picked apart for not really taking either stance in any way snarky as opposed to being "psst" at and talked down to by someone who doesn't know a thing about me?

And that means nothing.

Music to some is static to others.

Hate to burst your bubble but many people don't care about choral works.

You seem to be trying to get a rise out of me by expressing disdain for my life's work. I honestly couldn't care less what you think some people think about choral music. Your point was rejected and all you can come up with in response is an "ad canticam" attack. What is music to some PEOPLE doesn't speak to the point about BIRDS made long ago.

My "bubble" (whatever you imagine that to be) is sound. You cannot burst the impenetrable -- I pull in two consecutive packed houses of 500 people who sit in unpadded church pews for each of my hourlong concert programs. Enough people care so that I may work, and thank God for that, whether he is in the details or in our imaginations.

Well done, you're asking me to read having stated categorically that you refuse to read past the first paragraph due to finding something that provides you with an excuse not to challenge your own belief, because that's all it is, a belief that the causes for choral music and bird music cannot stem from the evolutionary force - a belief with no evidence and when challenged with contrary evidence, you do not seek enlightenment, you seek to avoid it.

When the introduction -- the introduction! -- can't get past one medium for love songs (and inadvertently references Paul McCartney while doing it, c.f. "Silly Love Songs"), I've no reason to go on reading.

Also being told to "take time to read and learn" what you haven't the patience to summarize -- seeing this isn't a graduate seminar in evolutionary musicology -- strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

Heh, well, it would be pretty sweet if they actually paid me enough that I didn't have to have a "real" job as well. :p

And thanks for the advice - I haven't really done a great deal of research on which degree I want yet, seeing as I'm unlikely to be able to afford to go back to grad school for at least a couple more years, so I've mostly been planning on the MFA by default.

To get paid at all is coolness. I'm pretty sure I could so many "regular" jobs if I knew I got to sing at the end of the day or week and get even a pittance for it (especially when I'd do it for free). Well done. What part do you sing?

No, they are the same exact thing. If you have some evidence to the contrary, it would be nice if you would show it rather than being belligerent and just proclaiming yourself right. "Creator" and "Intelligent Designer" are interchangeable nouns. Now, maybe you have a perception of the two being different in some way, if so, please indulge me! Otherwise, stop acting like you have made some point you haven't made.


If you read Dembskis book, he makes frequent use of "God" and "Creator" if the "Intelligent Designer" was unknown/unprovable, then the use of "god" or "creator" would be better used.

Well, according to the Scientific Method of the Science I am familiar with, we must indeed entertain the possibility of flying spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns, especially if there is any suggested evidence to support such a theory. Can your science prove otherwise? Mine can't!

:D ok you raised the point of FSM and answered it. Think about it.

You can prove this? Please... do it!!! You can THEORIZE on why you THINK people worship! That is ALL you can do! Science does not propose an answer for this, it gives a theory, and one that is subject to scrutiny.


Ok? Science only offers explanations. Where are you going?

Achom's Razor states that when you have two possibilities, the easiest explanation is most probable. The easiest explanation for why mankind worships, is because there is something greater than self which created us.

Actually no it doesn't.

Worship != proof of existence

Measure this against Darwin's theory of natural selection, which says that unneeded attributes evolve out of the species, yet humanity's connection to spirituality remains... hmmmmm??? Interesting!


:confused: ok physical attributes......

"Darwin says we came from monkeys and that is a direct contrast with God's word!"

Ahm? Darwin didn't say we came from monkeys.

‘Intelligent Designer’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ has taken on a specific meaning thanks to the efforts of certain American Christians. You yourself have quite rightly said that (certain forms of) creationism and evolution are not incompatible, but ‘Intelligent Design’ specifically refutes the theory of evolution. Thus, ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘creationism’ are not exactly the same, even if they do share very similar propositions.

‘Intelligent Design’ refutes some things that many forms of creationism hold to be true, and so we can’t say that the two refer to the same concept.

So far, no one has produced anything to support this supposed "difference" between ID and Creationism. Again. maybe I have lived a sheltered life and the resources I have used most of my adult life are incomplete, because the dictionary defines "to create" and "to design" as being synonymous. If we were intelligently designed, it was by a creator, there is no other logical conclusion. Now... "WHO" was that intelligent designer? Was it the God of Abraham? The God of Muhammad? The Sun or Moon God? Little Green Men from Xycon? Donald Trump's first wife? I don't profess to know that, and ID doesn't claim to answer that.

I have read several essays on ID, and I have never read one single line that indicated a refutation of evolution theory. ID does indeed contradict the assumption that ET explains origin, which it doesn't, and never has. Still, even if we could prove that evolution was responsible for the origin of the species, (something inherently impossible to do) it wouldn't negate the possibility of an intelligent designer who orchestrated the evolutionary process. So, we are still left with the big question and no answer.

Well done, you're asking me to read having stated categorically that you refuse to read past the first paragraph due to finding something that provides you with an excuse not to challenge your own belief, because that's all it is, a belief that the causes for choral music and bird music cannot stem from the evolutionary force - a belief with no evidence and when challenged with contrary evidence, you do not seek enlightenment, you seek to avoid it.

Okay, so love songs keep changing as a result of sexual selection. I'll discount the paper's continual use of singing males and female critics, despite the Madeline Peyroux CD playing in the background ;). This paper does nothing to explain my feelings when I'm presented with a well-sung piece of music. The research and insight into sexual selection (and the extrapolation that the process of "signal diversity" was amplified by our larger human cerebra into the plethora of love songs we now hear) was impressive.

None of it -- not a word -- backs up your "80% of all songs are love songs" assertion. This link does not challenge my beliefs at all. It shows a correlation between sexual selection for diversity and extensive libraries of songs in birds and hypothesizes that human love songs are of a similar bent, which explains the constant need for more R & B dreck on the radio -- chicks get bored. However, how can you explain that the need for diversity tails off as humans age? Older folks tend to prefer the music of their youth and eschew newer songs.

It's a fine piece of research, but despite your claims, it doesn't affect my stance about music at all.

When the introduction -- the introduction! -- can't get past one medium for love songs (and inadvertently references Paul McCartney while doing it, c.f. "Silly Love Songs"), I've no reason to go on reading.

Also being told to "take time to read and learn" what you haven't the patience to summarize -- seeing this isn't a graduate seminar in evolutionary musicology -- strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

The summary is that diversification of music is a central part of explaining that music, if not all forms of communication, is driven by sexual selection over simple information transfer.

Reasoning is that if it was simply information transfer then we'd expect greater simplicity as it would be advantageous to have distinct, easily understood messages. Yet in nearly all animals, we see a great diversity of signals.

This great diversity points to a need for differentiation by the communicator, otherwise, how would a potential mate discern difference between suitors.

So the huge amount of diversity in music (or even basic communication signals), seen from birdsong to choral to pop, is an expression of differentiation, of variety.

Much like the peacock, whose feathers are not adapted for fantastic flying but for attraction. Would you say fashion and a peacocks feathers are entirely unrelated or are they both forms of marking ourselves out to others at their base, highlighting our best points in order to attract.

However, the main point is that you're finding something for which you have no answer - the range of music - and then saying it must be divinely inspired; because you see no purpose, yet there is purpose, it's just you aren't aware of it.

This is the same argument against ID - that it's simply a state of not having an answer and thus stating 'it must be divinely inspired', or created.

All science says about questions for which it has no answer is 'I don't know'. It does not say 'It must be...'

So far, no one has produced anything to support this supposed "difference" between ID and Creationism. Again. maybe I have lived a sheltered life and the resources I have used most of my adult life are incomplete, because the dictionary defines "to create" and "to design" as being synonymous. If we were intelligently designed, it was by a creator, there is no other logical conclusion. Now... "WHO" was that intelligent designer? Was it the God of Abraham? The God of Muhammad? The Sun or Moon God? Little Green Men from Xycon? Donald Trump's first wife? I don't profess to know that, and ID doesn't claim to answer that.

I have read several essays on ID, and I have never read one single line that indicated a refutation of evolution theory. ID does indeed contradict the assumption that ET explains origin, which it doesn't, and never has. Still, even if we could prove that evolution was responsible for the origin of the species, (something inherently impossible to do) it wouldn't negate the possibility of an intelligent designer who orchestrated the evolutionary process. So, we are still left with the big question and no answer.

Good grief -- Black Forrest and Neo Art have all but spelled it out for you in chalk. I'm sorry, but you're being willfully ignorant at this point.

To get paid at all is coolness. I'm pretty sure I could so many "regular" jobs if I knew I got to sing at the end of the day or week and get even a pittance for it (especially when I'd do it for free). Well done. What part do you sing?

Alto, usually, although I tend to get shunted into soprano and tenor parts whenever there's a gap that needs filling. (I even had to sing baritone II once, which was rather horrifying - I could hit all the notes, but I definitely couldn't sound good doing so!)

However, the main point is that you're finding something for which you have no answer - the range of music - and then saying it must be divinely inspired; because you see no purpose, yet there is purpose, it's just you aren't aware of it.

This is the same argument against ID - that it's simply a state of not having an answer and thus stating 'it must be divinely inspired', or created.

All science says about questions for which it has no answer is 'I don't know'. It does not say 'It must be...'

Whoa! I've already dug into your article (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13287743&postcount=62). Slow down, there.

When did I ever say ANYthing about the RANGE of music? My point was that there is no evolutionary need for me to be physically affected by what I consider to be beautiful choral works. You need to check what you're attempting to refute before you refute it. I completely agree with the sexual selection aspect of birdsong/music that they use to explain it's DIVERSITY. But I was never at odds with musical diversity.

Alto, usually, although I tend to get shunted into soprano and tenor parts whenever there's a gap that needs filling. (I even had to sing baritone II once, which was rather horrifying - I could hit all the notes, but I definitely couldn't sound good doing so!)

That's also very, VERY bad for your voice. Male tessiturae in women's parts are for emergencies only. I hope you weren't a baritone for long.

You can offer what ever you like. Just be prepared to be told it's crap.


Sigworthy. :p

Well, those who believe in ET have been shown to pay drastically less in phone bills.

*wound*

Okay, so love songs keep changing as a result of sexual selection. I'll discount the paper's continual use of singing males and female critics, despite the Madeline Peyroux CD playing in the background ;). This paper does nothing to explain my feelings when I'm presented with a well-sung piece of music. The research and insight into sexual selection (and the extrapolation that the process of "signal diversity" was amplified by our larger human cerebra into the plethora of love songs we now hear) was impressive.

Glad to hear, genuinely.

None of it -- not a word -- backs up your "80% of all songs are love songs" assertion. This link does not challenge my beliefs at all. It shows a correlation between sexual selection for diversity and extensive libraries of songs in birds and hypothesizes that human love songs are of a similar bent, which explains the constant need for more R & B dreck on the radio -- chicks get bored. However, how can you explain that the need for diversity tails off as humans age? Older folks tend to prefer the music of their youth and eschew newer songs.

Eesh, I'd have to go into a long parable of roads to explain the brain but, suffice to say, our brains become less flexible as we grow older, neural pathways 'harden', or become more entrenched and we're less able to both learn and appreciate new things.

As for 80%, I appreciate you're not allowing pop music but really, look at the Top 100 songs, most have the word love in them let alone being about love. That was my simple meaning, it's a literal expression of the reasons we enjoy music and I see it's not really relevant to your own idea of music - it wasn't central to my point though.

It's a fine piece of research, but despite your claims, it doesn't affect my stance about music at all.

I may be mistaken but your stance was that you could see no reason for the appreciation of music, therefore you felt it was divinely inspired - I've provided you with an explanation. You can quibble over whether it's correct but my main point is that just because you don't have an answer does not make it divinely inspired.

I'm sure our ancestors looked at lightning, couldn't think of an explanation and therefore attributed it to the Gods.

Whoa! I've already dug into your article (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13287743&postcount=62). Slow down, there.

When did I ever say ANYthing about the RANGE of music? My point was that there is no evolutionary need for me to be physically affected by what I consider to be beautiful choral works. You need to check what you're attempting to refute before you refute it. I completely agree with the sexual selection aspect of birdsong/music that they use to explain it's DIVERSITY. But I was never at odds with musical diversity.

No.

Diversity of music points to why we appreciate music, it's not giving a reason for why music is diverse, it's saying it's diverse because of why we have music in the first place.

despite any differences we may have, I think we can all agree the OP is made of fail

I suggest you look up the definition of "intelligent design" and "creationism" and stop using them interchangeably.

Moreover, they are not "compatable". Intelligent design says that things were designed in a specific way. Evolution says things came about through random mutations and selective forces. Either things are random, or they are designed, not both.
Neo Art, Creationism and ID áre interchangable. The people who used to argue for the former once argue for ID now. Both are opposed to evolution, and for the same reason. Or let me put it differently: ID is just creationism in disguise.

If you read Dembskis book, he makes frequent use of "God" and "Creator" if the "Intelligent Designer" was unknown/unprovable, then the use of "god" or "creator" would be better used.

It's academic, Creator, God, Intelligent Designer, are all the same thing in respect to the theory of ID. You would be hard pressed to conclude we were intelligently designed, yet not created, and any entity capable of this feat would be considered a God to most rational persons.


:D ok you raised the point of FSM and answered it. Think about it.

No, Neo Art raised that point, I merely stated that Scientific Method requires us to examine ALL possibility, regardless of how silly we may think it to be on the surface. That is what Science and Scientific theory is all about!

Ok? Science only offers explanations. Where are you going?

Actually, Science only offers theories for explanations. It can neither "prove" or "disprove" anything.


Actually no it doesn't.

Worship != proof of existence

Read carefully, I never said that Worship=proof of existence. I pointed out a legitimate scientific observation in the behavior of the human animal. I referred to Achom's Razor, which says the easiest explanation is most likely, and in this scenario, the easiest explanation for why mankind has endured centuries of persecution, scorn, ridicule, genocide, and death to worship a deity, is because there IS a deity. Achom's is a 'theory' too, so I am not stating anything is "proof" of anything here.


:confused: ok physical attributes......

Physical and behavioral attributes. Tell me one instance of any living organism which behaves a certain way for no reason whatsoever. Our understanding of nature, in fact, Darwin's own theory of natural selection, tells us that living creatures behave a certain way for a reason, through evolution, nothing is retained in the species that is not necessary or needed. Yet, humans, for as long as we can trace humans back, have exhibited some form of spiritual worship or ritual. The scientific conclusion must be, there is a reason for it, and it goes beyond some off-the-cuff explanation regarding psychology. Even with psychological attributes, there must be an inherent reason for the species to maintain them.

Ahm? Darwin didn't say we came from monkeys.

And The Bible doesn't say everything was created in seven, twenty-four-hour Roman Calendar days either. Didn't you get the sarcasm there? Neo took a literal interpretation from the Bible and attempted to compare it to his perception of evolution as empirical fact. I simply reversed what he said and spat it back out at him, to illustrate how silly his statement was.

That's also very, VERY bad for your voice. Male tessiturae in women's parts are for emergencies only. I hope you weren't a baritone for long.

Nope, I wasn't, thank goodness. It was only for one piece where the baritone section urgently needed help and no tenors or basses could be spared. And, hey, it gives me a good story to tell. Not many singers can honestly say that they've sung every part from soprano I to baritone II. (I keep hoping someday to find a bizarrely high bass part, just so I can lay claim to having sung every part. :p )

Nowadays, though, I barely ever even sing tenor parts, even though they tend to be perfectly comfortable, since I had the misfortune to get a nasty case of laryngitis a couple of winters ago that left me with vocal nodes just from trying to speak. Given how long it took me to recover from the stupid things, I'm pretty obsessively careful about being nice to my voice now.

Neo Art, Creationism and ID áre interchangable.

No, they are not, not in the slightest. "Not everything could have been a product of natural selection because certian things could not have come at random, even over billions of years of the planet" and "the earth is 6000 years old and created by god in 6 days" are, in no way, interchangable.

Good grief -- Black Forrest and Neo Art have all but spelled it out for you in chalk. I'm sorry, but you're being willfully ignorant at this point.

Unless this board has some way of masking certain replies and I overlooked it, I think you are incorrect. No one has shown me the difference between an Intelligent Designer and a Creator. In my dictionary, they are the exact same thing. Now, maybe Neo and BF have some understanding that differs from Merriam-Webster on this, but thus far, they have not offered such.

I don't appreciate being called "ignorant" by you, and it's my understanding this is against the policies of the forum. You may want to watch your language.

No, they are not, not in the slightest. "Not everything could have been a product of natural selection because certian things could not have come at random, even over billions of years of the planet" and "the earth is 6000 years old and created by god in 6 days" are, in no way, interchangable.

A pity that the actual ID that the discovery institute c.s. are pushing to get into the classroom is somewhat different from what you describe; complete with false claims, faulty reasoning (IC and DI) and a surprising favouritism towards the Biblical story.

Read carefully, I never said that Worship=proof of existence. I pointed out a legitimate scientific observation in the behavior of the human animal. I referred to Achom's Razor, which says the easiest explanation is most likely, and in this scenario, the easiest explanation for why mankind has endured centuries of persecution, scorn, ridicule, genocide, and death to worship a deity, is because there IS a deity. Achom's is a 'theory' too, so I am not stating anything is "proof" of anything here.

1) It's "Occam". Strike 1

2) Occam's razor doesn't say anything close to what you think it does. Rather, it says "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory". However in the question of "is there a god", one can not simply use occam's razor ot eliminate the lack of god, as the assumption of god is necessary in the prediction. Strike 2.

3) even if your description of "Achom"'s razor is correct, the presumption that there exists an extremely powerful entity, existing outside of space and time with the ability to create universes and know all things that are, were, and ever will be is somehow simpler than the concept of "human beings, being emotionally frail, like to imagine they're not alone as small small things in a big big universe". That's the simpler explanation?

Strike 3. You fail.

So far, no one has produced anything to support this supposed “difference” between ID and Creationism.
I just did in the post you’ve quoted, while Black Forrest and Neo Art have also done so in previous posts.

Again. maybe I have lived a sheltered life and the resources I have used most of my adult life are incomplete, because the dictionary defines “to create” and “to design” as being synonymous.
Well, here may be your problem. We’re not discussing the terms ‘create’ and ‘design’ (though the pedant in me wants to point out that one can easily create something without designing it; a human baby, born in the natural way, is a good example of this), we’re discussing the theories of ‘Intelligent Design’ — a specific theory of creationism — and ‘Creationism’ — a collection of disparate theories of the beginnings of our Universe, all positing that an entity created said Universe.

Intelligent discussion tends to stray away from 'my dictionary tells me X'.

One could argue that ID and creationism are one and the same, but that would be reducing ID to merely refer to creationism in general. ID refers to a specific creationist theory, and thus cannot be said to be a synonym with ‘creationism’. An analogy would be to claim that ‘car’ and ‘Enzo Ferrari’ are synonyms. It is true that an Enzo is a car, but it would be disingenuous to say that when we say ‘car’ we mean ‘Enzo Ferrari’.

If we were intelligently designed, it was by a creator, there is no other logical conclusion. Now... “WHO” was that intelligent designer? Was it the God of Abraham? The God of Muhammad? The Sun or Moon God? Little Green Men from Xycon? Donald Trump’s first wife? I don’t profess to know that, and ID doesn’t claim to answer that.
Perhaps not theoretically, but proponents of ID hardly hide who they believe the ‘Intelligent Designer’ is; the Christian God.

I have read several essays on ID, and I have never read one single line that indicated a refutation of evolution theory.
Well, you must have read some pretty poor essays.

ID’s concept of Irreducible Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) directly challenges evolutionary theory.

I don't appreciate being called "ignorant" by you, and it's my understanding this is against the policies of the forum. You may want to watch your language.

Calling an ignorant person ignorant is not against any particular policy (though if you feel it is, feel free to report it, threatening mod action most certainly IS against the rules, however).

And the fact that you made a thread about "creationism" and "intelligent design" without knowing what the two terms actually mean (or, apparently, haven't taken any effort to look them up on any area that discusses them, rather than just presuming you knew) certainly makes you pretty damned ignorant.

Everyone you make good agruements, but fail to understand one thing, and that is; It's an individual choice what you chose to believe. There is no proof that God exist or that man came to be through evolution. There is no way anyone can tell you for a fact either one is true. The believe in God is base on faith that a creator exist and set this hold thing up for mankind. Evolution is the believe the Man came to be through mutation and or transienting from one specie to another. All these ideas are great on paper and are good debate topics, but nothing. It comes down what one believes in their hearts.

Glad to hear, genuinely.

Thanks. I was a bit hasty before, I'll cop to that.

Eesh, I'd have to go into a long parable of roads to explain the brain but, suffice to say, our brains become less flexible as we grow older, neural pathways 'harden', or become more entrenched and we're less able to both learn and appreciate new things.

I've taken enough psychology and growth/development of the learner courses to have heard that explanation about older brains. I'm not sure it applies, given that the paper you linked to didn't mention the age of the birds they studied, but I'd rather not split those hairs now.

As for 80%, I appreciate you're not allowing pop music but really, look at the Top 100 songs, most have the word love in them let alone being about love. That was my simple meaning, it's a literal expression of the reasons we enjoy music and I see it's not really relevant to your own idea of music - it wasn't central to my point though.

Fair enough. I only looked through the Top 50 (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=The+Billboard+Hot+100) before I started weeping for want of more than one or two names I recognized (I'm 37 years old and while my brain has yet to completely calcify, modern pop is in a bad state), and of those 50, three had love in the title, and perhaps another seven or so had titles that directly suggested love or the loss thereof.

I may be mistaken but your stance was that you could see no reason for the appreciation of music, therefore you felt it was divinely inspired - I've provided you with an explanation. You can quibble over whether it's correct but my main point is that just because you don't have an answer does not make it divinely inspired.

No. I said I could see no evolutionary purpose for me to perceive chills down my spine when I hear certain passages of music (or see the ocean, or other stirring sights). The somatic reaction is what I'm talking about, and your explanation hasn't reached that yet. Though given your thoroughness, I won't wager against you.

If I don't have an answer, I'm free to believe whatever I wish. That freedom comes from somewhere. Any ideas?

I'm sure our ancestors looked at lightning, couldn't think of an explanation and therefore attributed it to the Gods.

I'm sure they did, too. But the sense of wonder and curiosity -- where does that come from? The consciousness itself that we exist in and perceive the universe with -- whence?

No.

Diversity of music points to why we appreciate music, it's not giving a reason for why music is diverse, it's saying it's diverse because of why we have music in the first place.

Ah -- good call, I had it bass-ackwards. My apologies.

Everyone you make good agruements, but fail to understand one thing, and that is; It's an individual choice what you chose to believe. There is no proof that God exist or that man came to be through evolution. There is no way anyone can tell you for a fact either one is true. The believe in God is base on faith that a creator exist and set this hold thing up for mankind. Evolution is the believe the Man came to be through mutation and or transienting from one specie to another. All these ideas are great on paper and are good debate topics, but nothing. It comes down what one believes in their hearts.

*vomits*
Reality is NOT optional.

No, they are not, not in the slightest. "Not everything could have been a product of natural selection because certian things could not have come at random, even over billions of years of the planet" and "the earth is 6000 years old and created by god in 6 days" are, in no way, interchangable.

You are talking about a very isolated and extreme view of Creationism. BUT... Just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow, some way, it is proven that we were the product of original creation 6000 years ago, does it negate the possibility of evolution theory? No! Even in the most extreme of views from either side, the opposing view can't be proven invalid.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing, and just like Evolution Theory, there are many differing degrees of both! It defies logic, thus, is impossible, for us to have been Created without intelligent design, and equally impossible for us to have been Intelligently Designed without being created. You simply can't divorce the two and proclaim them different because you want to pin an "extremist" tag on one of them.

it must be kind of sad to be someone like the OP, to always think that you are the clever one who sees the "obvious" solutions to problems like this, thinking yourself smarter than the rest for thinking of it, never realizing that, in fact, the argument is far more complex then you appreciate, and those that discuss it are on a far higher level than you are.

One would think that if the answer seemed so obvious, one would at least pause to consider whether he really understood the question.

I often see threads on various message boards, presenting some viewpoint which pits Darwin's theory of evolution against the theory of intelligent design. As if, one of the two is true and the other is false.

Which of course ignores that there is a plethora of alternative "theories" out there.
The Theory of Evolution has the nice property that it is a scientific theory, and as such can be compared and ranked when compared with other scientific theories. So far, it has won. All the other scientific theories were shown to be inferior or wrong. Maybe in the future we will find something better.

Enter: religious theories. I have no idea how one would compare those in value, let alone how one would compare them with a scientific one. But it greatly annoys me that the pro-Genesis people pretend they can and have already disproven all other religions.

Unless this board has some way of masking certain replies and I overlooked it, I think you are incorrect. No one has shown me the difference between an Intelligent Designer and a Creator. In my dictionary, they are the exact same thing. Now, maybe Neo and BF have some understanding that differs from Merriam-Webster on this, but thus far, they have not offered such.

I don't appreciate being called "ignorant" by you, and it's my understanding this is against the policies of the forum. You may want to watch your language.

Thou sayest.

Calling you "willfully ignorant" means that you've been post-quoted point-by-point several times with complete refutations of each of your points. All you can come up with after that is basically "nuh-uh". Which is fine, but willfully ignorant because you're not even willing to agree to disagree, despite being shown that ID and Creationism are utterly not interchangeable. What other conclusion can I draw? Even I conceded some of my argument to Barringtonia on the strength of his argument and the link he showed me. I'm agreeing to disagree on the evolutionary purpose of a physical reaction to beauty. See how easy that is? Why on Earth would I want to go back and repeat any earlier argument I made just to keep the "fight" going?

Deliberately stirring the pot when it's empty? Willfully ignorant. If you can come up with a better way to describe that behavior, please do.

Which of course ignores that there is a plethora of alternative "theories" out there.
The Theory of Evolution has the nice property that it is a scientific theory, and as such can be compared and ranked when compared with other scientific theories. So far, it has won. All the other scientific theories were shown to be inferior or wrong. Maybe in the future we will find something better.

Enter: religious theories. I have no idea how one would compare those in value, let alone how one would compare them with a scientific one. But it greatly annoys me that the pro-Genesis people pretend they can and have already disproven all other religions.

FULL OF WIN! Outstanding point.

You are talking about a very isolated and extreme view of Creationism.

No, that is what "creationism" means.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth

Discussing "creationism" in the context of the united states refers to biblical young earth creationism.

BUT... Just for the sake of argument, let's say that somehow, some way, it is proven that we were the product of original creation 6000 years ago, does it negate the possibility of evolution theory? No!

Are you nuts? if the earth was in fact 6000 years old of course it negates evolutionary theory, as we know it. Evolutionary theory states that life on this planet is a result of natural selection causing the rise of different species. In a mere 6000 years there would not have been anywhere close to sufficient time for evolutionary pressures to create multiple species


Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing,

No, they are not. They mean very specific, and very different, things. Rather than try to foolishly rage against windmills, you could try...looking it up. And I don't mean looking up the definition of "design" and "create", but look up the actual terms.

I suggest

here (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)

and

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)

Read those, then get back to me.

*vomits*
Reality is NOT optional.

True -- but is not reality, at least sometimes, what we make of it?

True -- but is not reality, at least sometimes, what we make of it?

no. This is not the matrix, and you are not neo :p

Calling an ignorant person ignorant is not against any particular policy (though if you feel it is, feel free to report it, threatening mod action most certainly IS against the rules, however).

And the fact that you made a thread about "creationism" and "intelligent design" without knowing what the two terms actually mean (or, apparently, haven't taken any effort to look them up on any area that discusses them, rather than just presuming you knew) certainly makes you pretty damned ignorant.

Calling a person 'ignorant' is against the rules here. I've been banned for this before, so don't try to tell me otherwise. Threatening? Who has threatened? I stated correctly, that calling people "ignorant" because you disagree, is a violation of the rules here. But, I will immediately go report this to the mods, so as to not violate some other rule I may not be aware of.

I do know what the terms mean, I have discussed them objectively, and essentially all you have done is throw out petty insults and condescension. It's okay, I understand why, I even gave an explanation in my OP, it's because you have a hidden underlying agenda in play. I get it!

Everyone you make good agruements, but fail to understand one thing

You can hold up there.
Don't presume so much.

no. This is not the matrix, and you are not neo :p

Good grief, I hope not.

I suppose I'm referring to subjective reality, that of perception. The reality as crafted in the minds of percipients of aesthetic events such as performances or exhibitions of the arts.

I don't mean to unintentionally espouse Bush43 doctrine.

I do know what the terms mean

No...no you really don't.

no. This is not the matrix, and you are not neo :p
As one of my lecturers said, “I just want to go up to one of these people [metaphysical relativists] in a pub, knock over their pint, push them on the floor, take out a gun, scream ‘relativise this!’ and fire.”

As one of my lecturers said, “I just want to go up to one of these people [metaphysical relativists] in a pub, knock over their pint, push them on the floor, take out a gun, scream ‘relativise this!’ and fire.”

Well, it'd only be murder if it wasn't art. Heh. Gotta love Aesthetics.

I am, of course, joking.

Intangelon and NeoArt, you have both been reported to the mods for violating board rules. I wasn't going to take it to that extreme, but after NeoArt tried to intimidate me by claiming my protest was in violation of the rules, I simply had no other choice. Sorry, I hope they don't ban you for too long, it was fun talking to you until you got ugly.

Well, I am willing to believe you are all figments of my imagination.

Can you stop imagining my genitals like that then?
*grits teeth*

True -- but is not reality, at least sometimes, what we make of it?

Well, I am willing to believe you are all figments of my imagination.

Intangelon and NeoArt, you have both been reported to the mods for violating board rules. I wasn't going to take it to that extreme, but after NeoArt tried to intimidate me by claiming my protest was in violation of the rules, I simply had no other choice. Sorry, I hope they don't ban you for too long, it was fun talking to you until you got ugly.

You're like the kid who tells on other kids for littering when a paper falls out of their notebook, aren't you? Using the Mods as weapons again. *sigh* Are you sure you're not, in fact, a Puritan?

Well, I am willing to believe you are all figments of my imagination.

Can you stop imagining my genitals like that then?
*grits teeth*

Thanks, y'all, I needed that. :D

Well, I am willing to believe you are all figments of my imagination.

I am, in fact, a giant talking squirrel

Thanks, y'all, I needed that. :D

you needed to picture his genitals?

How....odd

you needed to picture his genitals?

How....odd

Wait, well I...no, y'see, I...not exactly, but..uh...oh, bugger. I admit it. I did.
:eek:

Wait, well I...no, y'see, I...not exactly, but..uh...oh, bugger. I admit it. I did.
:eek:

they're really quite stunning aren't they?

they're really quite stunning aren't they?

...yes...

Wait, well I...no, y'see, I...not exactly, but..uh...oh, bugger. I admit it. I did.
:eek:
they're really quite stunning aren't they?
*dances weasel dance*
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/images/4441024a-f1.2.jpg

*dances weasel dance*
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/images/4441024a-f1.2.jpg

Nice balls.

You're like the kid who tells on other kids for littering when a paper falls out of their notebook, aren't you? Using the Mods as weapons again. *sigh* Are you sure you're not, in fact, a Puritan?


You know, it would have been nice to have gotten some attempt at an apology for your insults, rather than more of the same. It would have spoken highly of your character and integrity to simply say... Hey man, sorry, I shouldn't have called you 'ignorant' that wasn't right... but you decided to post what you did instead.

FYI, it's the first complaint I have ever lodged on the Mod board, and I wouldn't have complained this time if Neo had been a little more cordial about it. Let's get something straight, I am not your punching bag, and I don't intend to sit here watching what I say to people while you and Neo hurl insult after insult at me because you don't agree with what I've said. It's not "using mods as a weapon", it's called "playing by the same rules" and I intend to make sure you play by the same rules I have to play by here. That's all.

Good evening all,

To quote my genetics class syllabus on "Science, Statistics and Risk" (embolding, and underlining added by me)

"Science is a philosophy that tries to explain the works of the universe and our place in it. In other words it is a "method" which is used to discover the "Universal Truth" (the way things really are). [...] But unlike other philosophies such as religion, which are dogmatic and rely on faith, scientific truths must adhere to certain restrictions or criteria before it becomes acceptable. This doesn't mean science is any better then religion, it is just a different way to view the universe. In fact they are not even asking the same questions. Science is trying to answer questions about how things work (mechanistic) where as religion is asking questions about why things are the way they are (meaning)."

Now my question:
With the above criteria established, what basis does religion have for asking Mechanistic questions when the point of religion is to ask Meaning questions?

I.E. why is there a religious denomination to Evolutionary Theory?

Religion has no more place in science then science has in religion. Keeping in mind my above quoted passage.

I am non-denomination pagan, yet I believe the evidence that the human species originated in Africa. So much as I can believe it without having been there to witness it myself. Paganism as a philosophic and religious foundation for morals and ethics works with me, but does not condemn scientific reason.

-Rafe
OOC

[QUOTE=Dixieanna;13287244]I often see threads on various message boards, presenting some viewpoint which pits Darwin's theory of evolution against the theory of intelligent design. As if, one of the two is true and the other is false. Most arguments between ET supporters and ID proponents, will quickly degenerate into this fallacy of a notion. QUOTE]

Nice balls.

If ever i needed to quote AC/DC, it be now.
Some balls are held for charity
And some for fancy dress
But when they're held for pleasure
They're the balls that I like best
My balls are always bouncing
To the left and to the right
It's my belief that my big balls
Should be held every night

Why? Because.

Why? Because.

Ka-zen.

<snip>

I think you're miscategorizing the debate. There's nothing wrong with holding a philosophical debate on whether or not God and Evolution can co-exist (I believe they do, but that's beside the point)- the problem is that typically the "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate is really Creationists attempting to paint their ideas as science when they have no science to offer, with "Evolutionists" (a term wholly invented by Creationists as no such 'firm' group exists within the scientific community) pointing out, clearly, that lack of science. It'd be like me insisting that pilots get their advice only from me when I've never flown a plane before- I have nothing to offer, so why should they take it?

Frankly, the only reason why there's even a "debate" within the public concerning Evolution is because of the Creationists' persistent bullhorn denials creating the illusion of one. It fosters the idea that Evolution is somehow contentious within the scientific community when it isn't (unlike genetic engineering which is), creating pleas for "a common ground" when there isn't one. If Creationists simply accepted that someone could disagree with them and/or kept their debates simply philosophical the "Evolution-Creation controversy" wouldn't exist, because scientists have better use of their time than combating the misinformation that goes around. I have nothing wrong with anyone who holds Creationism to be true- just don't start telling me it's science.

Ka-zen.

My task here is done.

Spaceman Spiff - Awaaaaaaay!

Hi Ardchoille - you've reached the end now :)

There's no pot of gold I'm afraid.

Hi Ardchoille - you've reached the end now :)

There's no pot of gold I'm afraid.

"Puppet", you murmur?
:eek:

I'm getting so tired of this.
Has it occurred to anyone that in discussions about the existence of God the Atheists are usually very well informed on religion, whereas theists usually are totally oblivious about logic, reason, science...

Then why explain how it works to people who don't listen anyway?

ID is a ridiculous monster of a theory. Even I can easily improve on some of those "intelligent" designs. Every time I choke on some food I curse my designer.
Not worth going into.

To anybody who believes in ID: "Get an education, instead of an indoctrination!!"

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dilbert1.gif

:D

I do know what the terms mean, I have discussed them objectively, and essentially all you have done is throw out petty insults and condescension. It's okay, I understand why, I even gave an explanation in my OP, it's because you have a hidden underlying agenda in play. I get it!

An underlying agenda? That's rich, coming from you.

Ka-zen.

Ka, as far as I remember, denotes a question where the answer can either be yes, or no. Is placed at the END of sentences...

Zen, from what I have been able to decipher; is a "State of Being" of a person with the Universal Un/Conscienceness. Where there is no seperation between the two...

...In Japanese.

So if you are asking if someone has achieved Enlightenment, it would be "zen ka?" - though I am not sure, as I am still learning it.

So, if you are not meaning the above...please use the English language as this is an English language used fora.

Thank you for reading this,
No, I am not a Moderator; I believe They have better things to do then baby-sit us.

-Rafe
OOC

Why Evolution V Creationism? Because some flavours of Creationism cannot be true if the Theory of Evolution is. Thus the proponents fo those particular flavours will insist that the Theory of Evolution is false and that their particular flavour(most often Biblical Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) is true.

*snip*

Sha-zam.

Oh look, an anal retentive!

Lord Ifreann, et. al. (I believe you should be on some "Council of Sane" somewhere, hence the title)

Is it genetic or egocentric based, to have a need to be justified?

The ancient fora's of old, of their philosophies; religions and sciences. They debated, but they also made progress, where one advanced, new questions helped the others to advance; having never had asked themselves those same questions before.

This topic has been flushed, and now, so many of us are swirling around making no progress to a Final Conclusion. My first post for this perticular topic, was a re-examination of scientific and religious thought; in trying to figure out if the question is even a valid one to ask.

Witness the "flushing action" of someone posting some AC/DC lyrics about metephoric reference to genetalia, as well as what appears to be pictures of some ocean living organism. Then came what could be considered thinly vieled death threats, then debate of the definitions of the terms being debated.

(still no one has agreed, it does not help ones position to agree to a common foundation)
...ad nauseum/non anus rodentum.

in closing; I believe people should be banned from any and all forums of dicussions such as this, if they are found guilty of "willful ignorance". humanity has put footprints on celestial bodies; and here we are debating the same (insert adjective expletive) here as has been for what...the entirety of spoken language?

I personally think the problem lies in the difference between understanding the opposing side/s Vs. agreeing with the opposing side/s.

I.M.A.S.
-Rafe
OOC

PS - I remove myself from this topic, as I am mature enough to know "I dont know enough about it", and refuse to preach otherwise.

Why Evolution V Creationism? Because some flavours of Creationism cannot be true if the Theory of Evolution is. Thus the proponents of those particular flavours will insist that the Theory of Evolution is false and that their particular flavour (most often Biblical Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) is true.

Lord Ifreann, et. al. (I believe you should be on some "Council of Sane" somewhere, hence the title)

Is it genetic or egocentric based, to have a need to be justified?

The ancient fora's of old, of their philosophies; religions and sciences. They debated, but they also made progress, where one advanced, new questions helped the others to advance; having never had asked themselves those same questions before.

This topic has been flushed, and now, so many of us are swirling around making no progress to a Final Conclusion. My first post for this perticular topic, was a re-examination of scientific and religious thought; in trying to figure out if the question is even a valid one to ask.

Witness the "flushing action" of someone posting some AC/DC lyrics about metephoric reference to genetalia, as well as what appears to be pictures of some ocean living organism. Then came what could be considered thinly vieled death threats, then debate of the definitions of the terms being debated.

(still no one has agreed, it does not help ones position to agree to a common foundation)
...ad nauseum/non anus rodentum.

in closing; I believe people should be banned from any and all forums of dicussions such as this, if they are found guilty of "willful ignorance". humanity has put footprints on celestial bodies; and here we are debating the same (insert adjective expletive) here as has been for what...the entirety of spoken language?

I personally think the problem lies in the difference between understanding the opposing side/s Vs. agreeing with the opposing side/s.

I.M.A.S.
-Rafe
OOC

PS - I remove myself from this topic, as I am mature enough to know "I dont know enough about it", and refuse to preach otherwise.

We're not trying to reach any kind of final conclusion, we're debating/arguing for the enjoyment of doing so.


Also, your habits of signing your posts, noting them as OOC, and having the post you're quoting below your own post are inexplicably annoying :)

We're not trying to reach any kind of final conclusion, we're debating/arguing for the enjoyment of doing so.

No we're not.

And right now, knowing what we know now, evolution is the best explanation.

Best explanation for what? Not origin! ET doesn't even attempt to hypothesis how all the billions of forms of life originated. It doesn't even offer an explanation for cross-species evolution which would have occurred at some point. In all honesty, ET doesn't even adequately explain human evolution.

The thing is, you have accepted a scientific theory as fact of life, when scientific theory is not fact. To you, science has explained it with a theory, but that isn't how science works at all. Science can only give a possible explanation, and if you are paying attention, it also provides some evidence of an intelligent designer, through the behavioral characteristics of humans.

Much of the theory composed by Darwin has been completely contradicted with modern scientific discovery of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear medicine. We have unlocked the amazingly complex keys of life in DNA, and every blueprinted aspect of it, points to intelligent design. It's like finding a circuit board and theorizing the silicon and resin just formed and manipulated itself into a complex electronic component by fluke of random chance. Sorry, but it is illogical to conclude such a thing.

I'll again ask, what's so hot about understanding evolutionary theory in the first place? Folks, we're HERE, okay? Unless your particular lot in life is to research this topic, why get so worked up about it?

Useful medicine is a pretty good reason to understand evolution. Natural selection has been modeled and implemented to improve certain technologies. Understanding evolution puts us in our place, as the result of a chemical process on a small planet on the edge of a galaxy. The flip side of that is it gives us common ground with other species, and each other, since we all have similar origins. Even seemingly non-related academic fields, like language, take on a whole new light when put into evolutionary context.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn (about those threads) , just a good laugh at what some people post.

Sha-zam.

Oh look, an anal retentive!

All forbid a forum that has access to the entire planet does not have "inner circle", "good ol' boys" primary-school drama.

"Ka-zen", a term for only a select few of us here on NSstates?

Mod's forgive me for what I am about to do, but:
that was nothing more then ego-stroking, mental masterbatory horse shit.

So was the one-liner answer of "my work is done"... in response to "ka-zen". AND "ka-zen" being a response to [paraphrased] "why debate Evolutionary Theory vs. Inteligent Design/Creationism? Because." BEING a response to my post.

really, do you and your thug gang go around, doing as much as you are able to hijack a fora until it is destroyed with hate from misunderstanding?

rather lonely little hobby you have going if it is. :(

And when, on this pathetic excuse of a planet, has the word "because" EVER been a valid answer? Prove it. Objectivly.

I want to understand a topic of debate that is the cause of the deaths of unknown numbers of fellow humans. I would like to know about it, if only to see warning signs to get the hell out of the room when sparks fly.

There is also a possiblity I may realize I am wrong in my currently held belief. I may "convert" to to a different path after knowing more about it. Helping to achieve Self Totality.

So really, get out of my way. I am here to learn. Why else would I be on a political-simulation forum when I could be helping myself; such as by dating, or working a 2nd job, maybe getting more then 3 hours of sleep a night?

Understand this is not anger, or rage, or fury. Emotion?...no, my heart rate is not up, my breathing is not shallow. And you are not worth it.

I.M.A.S.
-Rafe
OOC

P.S.
Anal retentive? does this mean I was correct in my observation and translation of a Japanese term? Thank you for the help. :D

PS^2
It being [ISO:8601] 2007-12-13 T04:02 Z-8, here, I am off to sleep. Never will I be walking the halls of THIS thread, again.

Why Evolution V Creationism? Because some flavours of Creationism cannot be true if the Theory of Evolution is. Thus the proponents fo those particular flavours will insist that the Theory of Evolution is false and that their particular flavour(most often Biblical Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) is true.


You speak as though you believe ET to be "true", is this so? If it is, you are not using the Scientific Method, which says that ET is a theory, neither "true" or "false" but a speculation or prediction. Science would dictate, the theory of young earth should be tested, not simply dismissed as false because it would make ET false if found true. There are no "true" answers to this question, as much as you wish Evolution explains it all, it doesn't. Science, as good as it is, can't give us an answer to this question.

My initial post, and the point I am trying to make is, why does this always end up being Creation vs. Evolution, and who is to say it isn't both or neither? Perhaps we are a Genesis type science project delivered here by the dying Martians 4-million years ago... in which case... Are we then considered "created" or "evolved" ??? The point is, we don't know, we will never know, and regardless of which theory you choose to put faith in and believe is the definitive explanation, you can't prove you are correct.

Best explanation for what? Not origin! ET doesn't even attempt to hypothesis how all the billions of forms of life originated. It doesn't even offer an explanation for cross-species evolution which would have occurred at some point. In all honesty, ET doesn't even adequately explain human evolution.

Why yes! Evolution has zilch to do with abiogenesis!

...when did anyone say it did, pray tell?

...Science can only give a possible explanation, and if you are paying attention, it also provides some evidence of an intelligent designer, through the behavioral characteristics of humans.

And that point, if you were paying attention, has been rather soundly addressed in the rest of this thread. It's very poor form to rattle out the same arguments over and over again while ignoring the counter-points people have made.

Much of the theory composed by Darwin has been completely contradicted with modern scientific discovery of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear medicine. We have unlocked the amazingly complex keys of life in DNA, and every blueprinted aspect of it, points to intelligent design. It's like finding a circuit board and theorizing the silicon and resin just formed and manipulated itself into a complex electronic component by fluke of random chance. Sorry, but it is illogical to conclude such a thing.

Complexity doesn't automatically suggest creator. It suggests that evolution is far more grand in scope than Darwin thought. It's a hell of a leap of logic to go from that to "uh... creator!"

You speak as though you believe ET to be "true", is this so? If it is, you are not using the Scientific Method, which says that ET is a theory, neither "true" or "false" but a speculation or prediction. Science would dictate, the theory of young earth should be tested, not simply dismissed as false because it would make ET false if found true. There are no "true" answers to this question, as much as you wish Evolution explains it all, it doesn't. Science, as good as it is, can't give us an answer to this question.

Don't confuse "Theory" in the normal sense with "Scientific Theory". They're two very different animals. A scientific theory, particularly one as well researched and founded as evolution, is as close to fact as one could realistically achieve.

You really ought to know that .

No we're not.
I am anyway. I don't expect any debate threads to reach any real conclusion.
Best explanation for what?
For life being as it is today, given that we have evidence of it being different previously.
Not origin! ET doesn't even attempt to hypothesis how all the billions of forms of life originated.
Why would it? Where the life forms come from is of no relevance when you're only concerned about how they change over time, if at all.
It doesn't even offer an explanation for cross-species evolution which would have occurred at some point.
By cross-species evolution do you mean speciation?
In all honesty, ET doesn't even adequately explain human evolution.
How so?

The thing is, you have accepted a scientific theory as fact of life, when scientific theory is not fact. To you, science has explained it with a theory, but that isn't how science works at all. Science can only give a possible explanation, and if you are paying attention,
I'm sure I've complained to you before about how you put words in other people's mouths.
it also provides some evidence of an intelligent designer, through the behavioral characteristics of humans.
Oh really, and what is that evidence?

Much of the theory composed by Darwin has been completely contradicted with modern scientific discovery of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear medicine.
And?
We have unlocked the amazingly complex keys of life in DNA, and every blueprinted aspect of it, points to intelligent design.
Except it doesn't. DNA isn't blueprinted. The majority of our genes serve no real purpose at all. Their only use is the fact that there are so many of them and they are so random, thus making them unique from person to person, allowing for DNA profiling.
It's like finding a circuit board and theorizing the silicon and resin just formed and manipulated itself into a complex electronic component by fluke of random chance. Sorry, but it is illogical to conclude such a thing.
Indeed it is. But that's not what DNA is like at all. DNA is more like a huge series of letters. You see some strings of letters that are intelligable, and seem to infer that something must have written them. You're ignoring, however, the much more numerous strings of letters that mean nothing at all.
You speak as though you believe ET to be "true", is this so?
I suspect it is, given that it has enough backing to becom a scientific theory. If it is, you are not using the Scientific Method, which says that ET is a theory, neither "true" or "false" but a speculation or prediction. Science would dictate, the theory of young earth should be tested, not simply dismissed as false because it would make ET false if found true.
There is no theory of young earth to be tested. For all your talk of how everyone else is misusing the scientific method, you are apparently ignorant of what the word 'theory' even means in a scientific context.
There are no "true" answers to this question
To what question? The question of the origin of life? There is a true answer, I simply don't know what it is. I don't know of anyone who does. Nor do I know of any way of satisfactorily answering it, short of time travel.
, as much as you wish Evolution explains it all, it doesn't.
I wish no such thing, and object to you making claims about what I wish with no basis.
Science, as good as it is, can't give us an answer to this question.
What question?
My initial post, and the point I am trying to make is, why does this always end up being Creation vs. Evolution, and who is to say it isn't both or neither?
Because some types of Creationism are incompatible with the Theor Of Evolution and various other elements of science, and the proponents of those types of Creationism seem to think that discrediting evolution and science will lead to popular acceptance of their type of Creationism
Perhaps we are a Genesis type science project delivered here by the dying Martians 4-million years ago... in which case... Are we then considered "created" or "evolved" ??? The point is, we don't know, we will never know, and regardless of which theory you choose to put faith in and believe is the definitive explanation, you can't prove you are correct.

No we can't. But that's no reason not to try and discover how we came to be as we are.

You speak as though you believe ET to be "true", is this so? If it is, you are not using the Scientific Method, which says that ET is a theory, neither "true" or "false" but a speculation or prediction.

You appear to have no idea what "theory" means in the sciences.

If you are an honest, well-intentioned person, you will educate yourself about that before you proceed to make any more claims on this subject.


Science would dictate, the theory of young earth should be tested, not simply dismissed as false because it would make ET false if found true.

As previously stated, there is no "theory" of young earth. Primarily because the people who have proposed this "theory" have presented precisely zero testable hypotheses and predictions for their "theory." If they wish their beliefs to genuinely deserve theory status, then they will have to get to work.


There are no "true" answers to this question,

Yes, there are. We just don't know them yet.


as much as you wish Evolution explains it all, it doesn't.

Nobody who actually knows what evolution is would expect it to "explain it all," any more than we would expect Newtons Laws to explain it all.


Science, as good as it is, can't give us an answer to this question.

How would you know? You haven't even bothered to learn the definition of the most basic scientific terms. Don't you think you should do that before you start opining on what science can and cannot do?


Perhaps we are a Genesis type science project delivered here by the dying Martians 4-million years ago... in which case... Are we then considered "created" or "evolved" ???

1) That's not what Creationism states, so it's not "creation" in their terms and you are making a totally false parallel.

2) Evolution does not deal with how life originally formed from lifelessness. That's another of your glaring blind spots on this topic.


The point is, we don't know, we will never know, and regardless of which theory you choose to put faith in and believe is the definitive explanation, you can't prove you are correct.
Perhaps YOU will never know. Most likely because you appear unwilling to exert any effort to learn. I, on the other hand, have learned a great deal. I have personally tested and failed to disprove a number of hypotheses presented by evolutionary theory. You could do it, too, if you wanted. But I suppose it's easier to quit without trying.

Neo Art, Dixieanna isn't unjustified saying that ID and Creationism are one and the same. In the landmark Dover vs. Pennsylvania case, The missing link between Creationism and Intelligent Design was found in the textbook that the creationists were pushing, Pandas. Pandas, it turns out was written, but not published, before the 1987 decision ruling that creationism was unacceptable to teach in schools. After examining a draft of the original book, and the final draft that came out after the 1987 decision, the text was found to be exactly the same, except every use of the word "creationism" and "creationist" had been replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer." There was even one point where the correction wasn't made fully, reading "cintelligent designist."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html (Chapter 10, but i recommend watching the whole thing if you have time.)

It should be pointed out that Pandas is published by the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of ID today, and a big proponent of Creationism back in the early 80s. If we're talking about something other than the anti-evolution movement that this group has pushed for in the United States, then I apologize, my terms aren't appropriate.

Don't confuse "Theory" in the normal sense with "Scientific Theory". They're two very different animals. A scientific theory, particularly one as well researched and founded as evolution, is as close to fact as one could realistically achieve.

You really ought to know that .Well, that's the price for dropping outta school early on...

. Science would dictate, the theory of young earth should be tested, not simply dismissed as false

The young earth hypothesis WAS tested and shown false. Or at least, either it is false or several entire disciplines of science are completely and utterly wrong.

However, if you allow "but god used his magic powers" explanations young earth is still possible. But that - of course- is not scientific.

The young earth hypothesis WAS tested and shown false. Or at least, either it is false or several entire disciplines of science are completely and utterly wrong.
Was young earth actually tested and found false, or was old earth just tested and found not false? I know it's nitpicky and ultimately means the same thing for young earth, I'm just curious if they ever actually managed to form a hypothesis and design and carry out an expperiment.

Originally Posted by Dixieanna
as much as you wish Evolution explains it all, it doesn't.


This just bothers me. Not because it isn't true, certainly evolution isn't a unified theory of everything, but it really does explain a hell of a lot. More than most people give it credit for. Male nipples, for instance. More interestingly, however, it's beginning to explain things like suicidal ants and mice, language (I already mentioned that one, I know), abstract reasoning, consciousness, and technological trends. At least two books have been written about how religion might be explained in a naturalistic, evolutionary manner. It's really an incredibly powerful idea, once understood.

The conclusion I have reached is, those who will defiantly argue in favor or against ID or ET, are radical extremists. They have a hidden agenda, a cause and motivation behind what they espouse. Rather than objectively admitting that they could be wrong, and there could be a completely different explanation for our origin than we can even imagine, they had rather wage this war against the opposing viewpoint, because of the greater hidden motive. And the kicker is, you will never change a radicals mind.

Eh, that's a little (politespeak for "a lot") more paranoid than I would like, but you do have a point. Sort of.
Being omnipotent, there's no reason God would have to break His own laws, including evolution, to do something as simple as make humans, which is what you were saying about evolution being a tool. Something that's puzzled me about creationists is why they believe God is bound to act the way they expect him to. Now, the same thing goes for evolutionists, but they have plenty of proof to support their belief, so it seems that theirs is the best (politespeak for "real") answer.

Well, that's the price for dropping outta school early on...

...me or him?

At least two books have been written about how religion might be explained in a naturalistic, evolutionary manner. It's really an incredibly powerful idea, once understood.

Which ones? Methinks my bookshelf needs updating.

Which ones? Methinks my bookshelf needs updating.
I don't know what books he might have been refering to, but if you can handle some "nerdy" reading material you should see about getting books or papers about temporal lobe epilepsy. It's a really fascinating phenomenon, and one of the symptoms is hyperreligiosity. It provides some insights into the neurological basis for religious and spiritual beliefs.

I don't know what books he might have been refering to, but if you can handle some "nerdy" reading material you should see about getting books or papers about temporal lobe epilepsy. It's a really fascinating phenomenon, and one of the symptoms is hyperreligiosity. It provides some insights into the neurological basis for religious and spiritual beliefs.

Oh, I remember a documentary about that from a few years back... Interesting stuff. Things like faulty alarm clocks causing a sensation of an invisible presence being nearby?

Which ones? Methinks my bookshelf needs updating.

David Hume's Diologues Concerning Natural Religion, and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Hume was way ahead of his time with this, but of course his science is incredibly outdated by this point. He did inspire Dennett's book (written in 2006), which is absolutely fantastic, as it makes quite a case for viewing the world, including religion and spirituality, in terms of the natural evidence we have all around us.

You can't really go wrong with any Dennett work, but Breaking the Spell is a homerun all the way. Incidentally, it also explains the suicidal ants.

David Hume's Diologues Concerning Natural Religion, and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Hume was way ahead of his time with this, but of course his science is incredibly outdated by this point. He did inspire Dennett's book (written in 2006), which is absolutely fantastic, as it makes quite a case for viewing the world, including religion and spirituality, in terms of the natural evidence we have all around us.

You can't really go wrong with any Dennett work, but Breaking the Spell is a homerun all the way. Incidentally, it also explains the suicidal ants.

Ordered off Amazon :)

Dialogues will be presently added to my Hume section of my shelf. Impressive guy.

I am anyway. I don't expect any debate threads to reach any real conclusion.

"Everybody's different
I'm not"

That was the spirit in which I replied - possibly should have added a smiley to indicate that but I apologise for nuthin'!

"Everybody's different
I'm not"

That was the spirit in which I replied - possibly should have added a smiley to indicate that but I apologise for nuthin'!

I'll apologise you!

Ordered off Amazon :)

Dialogues will be presently added to my Hume section of my shelf. Impressive guy.

Wow, when you want a book you don't waste any time. I hope you enjoy them both.

Wow, when you want a book you don't waste any time. I hope you enjoy them both.

It's a toss-up between getting new, interesting books, or going back to reading through pages and pages of environmental law in the dim, futile hope that there's an argument hiding in there.

Cheers though.

Hi Ardchoille - you've reached the end now

There's no pot of gold I'm afraid.
"Puppet", you murmur?
:eek:

No way would I send any of my poor, innocent puppets unprotected into the wilds of an NSG religion debate.

Besides, I'm a devout Apatheist. It's against my religion.

Happy to see someone else thinking like me :rolleyes:

I believe in a God who created the world, but I can't see why this should be against evolutionism.

Happy to see someone else thinking like me :rolleyes:

I believe in a God who created the world, but I can't see why this should be against evolutionism.

Please never ever use the word evolutionism ever again. EVER.

Please never ever use the word evolutionism ever again. EVER.

Have I given it a wrong significance? :confused:

Have I given it a wrong significance? :confused:

It's... just so wrong. It's like calling people "Gravityists".

Happy to see someone else thinking like me :rolleyes:

I believe in a God who created the world, but I can't see why this should be against evolutionism.

The argument goes that Darwin didn't disprove god, he just presented an explanation that didn't require go. That's why so many religious leaders feel queasy with regards to the subject.

The argument goes that Darwin didn't disprove god, he just presented an explanation that didn't require go. That's why so many religious leaders feel queasy with regards to the subject.

I'm actually really surprised that the hardcore creationists haven't claimed something like "God inspired Darwin to come up with the theory of evolution just to test us". God's like that, see. He's a prankster.

Have I given it a wrong significance? :confused:

The -ism suffix can be used to express the following concepts:

* doctrine or philosophy (e.g. pacifism, olympism)
* theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism)
* political movement (e.g. feminism)
* artistic movement (e.g. cubism)
* action, process or practice (e.g. voyeurism)
* characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism)
* state or condition (e.g. pauperism)
* excess or disease (e.g. botulism)
* prejudice or bias (e.g. racism)
* characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism, Bushism)
* religion or belief system (e.g. Mormonism)


The Theory Of Evolution is none of those things. 'Evolutionism' is just a result of the modern trend of sticking -ism and -ist on the end of fucking everything in a poor attempt to give it negative connotations. See: Islamist.

No way would I send any of my poor, innocent puppets unprotected into the wilds of an NSG religion debate.

Besides, I'm a devout Apatheist. It's against my religion.

Was that the inference? I wasn't sure so did not deign to reply.

The Theory Of Evolution is none of those things. 'Evolutionism' is just a result of the modern trend of sticking -ism and -ist on the end of fucking everything in a poor attempt to give it negative connotations. See: Islamist.

Such an Ifreanist response :rolleyes:

Such an Ifreanist response :rolleyes:

*removes Barringtonia from existence*

Don't know, don't care.

*removes Barringtonia from existence*

*pops back into existence due to God performing the magic that is evolutionism*

I AM EVOLUTIONISED!

The problem is, the theory of intelligent design is not just that god said "let there be light!", it's more than that. ID says some things on the planet are so complex that they could not be produced randomly.

It's not simply god just seting the whole thing in motion from the beginning of the universe and watching. It's saying that the basic formations of life, in some degrees, are just too complex to be random.

So, either they are all random, or they are not. Those two views are not compatable.

Now that's damned insulting. Dignifying ID with the label "theory." It's a baseless conjecture at best, a fundie pipe-dream most likely.

Now that's damned insulting. Dignifying ID with the label "theory." It's a baseless conjecture at best, a fundie pipe-dream most likely.

It's worse than that, it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the wolf of Christian creationism in the sheep's clothing of scientific theory. The most obvious example of this is the creationist textbook Of Pandas And People, in which all earlier references to "God" and "creation" were changed to refer to a "Designer" and to "intelligent design." ID was contrived specifically as the cutting edge of a wedge designed to bring Christianity into public science education.

It's worse than that, it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the wolf of Christian creationism in the sheep's clothing of scientific theory. The most obvious example of this is the creationist textbook Of Pandas And People, in which all earlier references to "God" and "creation" were changed to refer to a "Designer" and to "intelligent design." ID was contrived specifically as the cutting edge of a wedge designed to bring Christianity into public science education.

I'm aware. It's one of the sickening things about this country, that people so intellectually dishonest, so unreasonably deceitful can be given a platform in school districts on which to preach their lies by a few "well-meaning" nutjobs, who manage to get elected to local representation.

*pops back into existence due to God performing the magic that is evolutionism*

I AM EVOLUTIONISED!

I want to try it!

Does it hurt? :p

I want to try it!

Does it hurt? :p

No more than a colonoscopy. If your proctologist has Parkinson's.

This thread, is boring.

This thread, is boring.

We only recently had a 100+ page Creationism thread. My guess is the small minority of Creationists who are still around after that resounding, circular dead-horse-flogging are too injured and battered to properly participate in a new one so soon.

It's worse than that, it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the wolf of Christian creationism in the sheep's clothing of scientific theory. The most obvious example of this is the creationist textbook Of Pandas And People, in which all earlier references to "God" and "creation" were changed to refer to a "Designer" and to "intelligent design." ID was contrived specifically as the cutting edge of a wedge designed to bring Christianity into public science education.

cdesign proponentsists (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html)!

cdesign proponentsists (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html)!

:D

God did it.

We only recently had a 100+ page Creationism thread. My guess is the small minority of Creationists who are still around after that resounding, circular dead-horse-flogging are too injured and battered to properly participate in a new one so soon.

No it's everyone. Everyone, especially the OP, is just parroting arguments that I have seen a bazillion times before (welcome to NSG... yeah I know). So as a matter of fact, I'm starting to find NSG a bit boring too.

No it's everyone. Everyone, especially the OP, is just parroting arguments that I have seen a bazillion times before (welcome to NSG... yeah I know). So as a matter of fact, I'm starting to find NSG a bit boring too.

*shrug* thats what ya find when you have been on one place too long. Mind you, most places are the same. I would invite ya here:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Minds-Eye

But you may find that boring too.

Now that's damned insulting. Dignifying ID with the label "theory." It's a baseless conjecture at best, a fundie pipe-dream most likely.

quite right.."unscientific hypothesis" then? The problem is, as often with threads like these, is that specific words have specific meanings and that some will misuse those words, sometimes as a result of ignorance, sometimes of mallace, to try and make their position more tenable, when it clearly is not.

"creationism is a theory, so is evolution, so they should both be taught!"

"scientific method requires us to look at all possibilities"

and so on and so on and so on.

You know, it would have been nice to have gotten some attempt at an apology for your insults, rather than more of the same. It would have spoken highly of your character and integrity to simply say... Hey man, sorry, I shouldn't have called you 'ignorant' that wasn't right... but you decided to post what you did instead.

You left me no choice. What else is it willful ignornace to you persist in repeating the same tropes over and over again no matter how many people answer you cleanly, clearly and concisely? And I'm not the only one noticing:

And that point, if you were paying attention, has been rather soundly addressed in the rest of this thread. It's very poor form to rattle out the same arguments over and over again while ignoring the counter-points people have made.

You are asking -- no, DEMANDING -- and apology for the "wrong" of calling a spade a spade in honest and accurate language. You shall get nothing from me on that front, especially when all you can seem to do is repeat yourself and then claim rules violations when people get tired of reading you repeat yourself and point that fact out to you.

That's not an insult, that's observation. The truth only hurts when it should, and if you're so hurt by what I said, perhaps I'm not the one at whom you should be looking. What isn't right is crying wolf to the Mods.

FYI, it's the first complaint I have ever lodged on the Mod board, and I wouldn't have complained this time if Neo had been a little more cordial about it. Let's get something straight, I am not your punching bag, and I don't intend to sit here watching what I say to people while you and Neo hurl insult after insult at me because you don't agree with what I've said. It's not "using mods as a weapon", it's called "playing by the same rules" and I intend to make sure you play by the same rules I have to play by here. That's all.

The difference is, had you called me ignorant, and I had indeed been ignorant, I'd have realized that. Remember a few pages back when Neo Art and Barringtonia took me to task for a few of my ideas? They didn't need to resort to pointing out my ignorance because, although I initially resisted out of ego and pride, I read the link I was sent and discovered that some aesthetic responses DO have foundations in evolution, useful or not. In short, when presented with REASONABLE EVIDENCE and a RATIONAL ARGUMENT, I found some of my points wanting and conceded them.

THAT speaks far higher of my character than any of your adolescent posturing ever will.

Useful medicine is a pretty good reason to understand evolution. Natural selection has been modeled and implemented to improve certain technologies. Understanding evolution puts us in our place, as the result of a chemical process on a small planet on the edge of a galaxy. The flip side of that is it gives us common ground with other species, and each other, since we all have similar origins. Even seemingly non-related academic fields, like language, take on a whole new light when put into evolutionary context.

I stand corrected again. Thanks for explaining.

See, Dixie? It's just that easy.

Divinely- inspired or -triggered evolution is possible. The problem is, it isn't testable, and therefore not falsifiable.

I have always wondered, how the ID believers can justify the premise that ID negates ET, and how supposedly "scientific" minds who endorse ET, can ignore the possibility of an original creator? There is no evidence for an orginal creator. It's possible, but until there's an actual indication that there was an original creator, said creator/meddler is an unnecessary assumption that does nothing to explain anything.
Isn't it possible that "God" or whoever Intelligently Designed us, might have used evolution as the tool to create? Yes.
Isn't it possible that some intelligent force could have played a role in making evolution possible?Yes.
Is it possible that we don't know all of the answers regarding our origin, and if this is the case, we can't possibly know anything for certain? Yes.
Isn't that exactly what the scientific method teaches us, to examine all possibilities? Yes. And there is no evidence indicating that an alien race, the flying spaghetti monster, or Vishnu are responsible for how life on earth is today. It's a possibility, just like that this is all a dream is also a possibility.

I happen to believe in both, Creationism and Evolution. Nothing in Darwin's theory proposes an answer for how we originated, only a theory for how we evolved once we did originate. Nothing in religious philosophy or teachings indicates that God didn't also create Evolution, so it is completely possible that both theories are true. It is also completely possible that neither theory is true. We may have originated from an alien science experiment! Yup.

No we're not.

Some of us are :D

quite right.."unscientific hypothesis" then? The problem is, as often with threads like these, is that specific words have specific meanings and that some will misuse those words, sometimes as a result of ignorance, sometimes of mallace, to try and make their position more tenable, when it clearly is not.

"creationism is a theory, so is evolution, so they should both be taught!"

"scientific method requires us to look at all possibilities"

and so on and so on and so on.

It's unfortunate but true that any, even the most dishonest and deceitful of actions, the most self-serving and harmful of lies, will be spread in support of this sort of slimy excuse for an idea. I would simply hope that those in the know, who do understand the proper definitions and uses of words like "theory" would use them so, as to avoid providing unnecessary fuel to this fire of ignorance and stupidity sweeping its way across the Bible Belt.

Incidentally, will you ever get around to making that account? :D

Neo Art, Dixieanna isn't unjustified saying that ID and Creationism are one and the same. In the landmark Dover vs. Pennsylvania case, The missing link between Creationism and Intelligent Design was found in the textbook that the creationists were pushing, Pandas. Pandas, it turns out was written, but not published, before the 1987 decision ruling that creationism was unacceptable to teach in schools. After examining a draft of the original book, and the final draft that came out after the 1987 decision, the text was found to be exactly the same, except every use of the word "creationism" and "creationist" had been replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer." There was even one point where the correction wasn't made fully, reading "cintelligent designist."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html (Chapter 10, but i recommend watching the whole thing if you have time.)

It should be pointed out that Pandas is published by the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of ID today, and a big proponent of Creationism back in the early 80s. If we're talking about something other than the anti-evolution movement that this group has pushed for in the United States, then I apologize, my terms aren't appropriate.

You know, when I first saw that video, I laughed most profusely at the discovery of the transitional form. :D

As if, one of the two is true and the other is false.

I have always wondered how supposedly "scientific" minds who endorse ET, can ignore the possibility of an original creator?
You haven't been thinking hard enough about it, though.

Isn't it possible that some intelligent force could have played a role in making evolution possible?
Evolution is the simple principle that those genetic traits that aid survival will survive and those that do not will not. It doesn't require an intelligence to "make it possible".

Is it possible that we don't know all of the answers regarding our origin, and if this is the case, we can't possibly know anything for certain? Isn't that exactly what the scientific method teaches us, to examine all possibilities?
Yes - examine in order to see which should be rejected. Science doesn't just accept every crackpot's ideas.

To make such arguments, from the ET standpoint, defies the very nature of the scientific method, which basically says that anything is possible and nothing is "proven" or "disproved" through science.
What do you think the scientific method is for? Determine which theories do and do not match the world around us. Accepting everything as equally valid is not the scientific method.

The conclusion I have reached is, those who will defiantly argue in favor or against ID or ET, are radical extremists.

And the kicker is, you will never change a radicals mind.
Except that Evolutionary Biology is in no way radical. It's the accepted scientific model for the origin of species.

The Theory Of Evolution is none of those things. 'Evolutionism' is just a result of the modern trend of sticking -ism and -ist on the end of fucking everything in a poor attempt to give it negative connotations. See: Islamist.

You Nazist!

:D

This thread, is boring.

Who read it to you? :p

As far as I am aware, this discussion is only happening in the USA. The majority of the world accepted evolution as a fact quite a while ago.

My initial post, and the point I am trying to make is, why does this always end up being Creation vs. Evolution, and who is to say it isn't both or neither? Perhaps we are a Genesis type science project delivered here by the dying Martians 4-million years ago... in which case... Are we then considered "created" or "evolved" ??? The point is, we don't know, we will never know, and regardless of which theory you choose to put faith in and believe is the definitive explanation, you can't prove you are correct.

So are you going after a philosophical debate or a scientific debate? If it's a scientific debate you're after then there is no debate- creationism/ID/Pastafarianism/Last Thursdayism etc. are just not science. If it's a philosophical debate you're after then your points can better fit into this millieu, because you're talking about the supernatural realm in which science does not (and at this stage, cannot) talk about. I'm prepared to talk about both, but at this stage in the thread I have no idea which way you're going so please clarify.

creationism/ID/Pastafarianism/Last Thursdayism etc. are just not science.

Personally, I endorse This Saturdayism!

Funny thing about this topic, and I will grant that this comes from an American's perspective..... Science cannot prove, or even reasonably define, a beginning or an end. Yet, the "science" minded person argues against faith-based belief systems due to their absence of scientific fact. Meanwhile, faith-based religion attempts to suggest that science not only cannot disprove religious principles, but actually attempts to validate claims via science, failing to acknowledge the biblical statements related to the need/requirement for faith.

In my opinion, I acknowledge what I believe to be the creator. I do so realizing that my belief is based almost solely on faith. I have no criticism for those who do not believe likewise. If we don't agree, I hope I am right for my sake, and wrong for your sake. I will say that my life is not lacking for my belief system, and if I evolve, we both will. I just pray you don't burn......

What do you think the scientific method is for? Determine which theories do and do not match the world around us. Accepting everything as equally valid is not the scientific method.

Dixieanna is correct in stating that the scientific method cannot be used to prove anything. That isn't the way it works. He is incorrect, however, in stating that it cannot be used to disprove anything. Disproof is a part of the scientific method.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn (about those threads) , just a good laugh at what some people post.

I'm with you on that. So many willfully ignorant people, so little time to laugh at them all.

creationism/ID/Pastafarianism/Last Thursdayism etc. are just not science.

creationism/ID/Pastafarianism/Last Thursdayism etc. are just not science

I don't mean to be mean, but if you're going to quote me, please use the "Quote" function, since you've lifted that straight from my post.

creationism/ID/Pastafarianism/Last Thursdayism etc. are just not science.

Personally, I endorse This Saturdayism!

Funny thing about this topic, and I will grant that this comes from an American's perspective..... Science cannot prove, or even reasonably define, a beginning or an end. Yet, the "science" minded person argues against faith-based belief systems due to their absence of scientific fact. Meanwhile, faith-based religion attempts to suggest that science not only cannot disprove religious principles, but actually attempts to validate claims via science, failing to acknowledge the biblical statements related to the need/requirement for faith.

In my opinion, I acknowledge what I believe to be the creator. I do so realizing that my belief is based almost solely on faith. I have no criticism for those who do not believe likewise. If we don't agree, I hope I am right for my sake, and wrong for your sake. I will say that my life is not lacking for my belief system, and if I evolve, we both will. I just pray you don't burn......

Gee, thanks. Of course, I'm planning on being cremated, so I suppose I will burn. Oh, well.

In my opinion, there is no creator. Science can, by the way, provide a reasonable picture of the beginning of this Universe. I won't try to explain because I'm not a cosmologist and would only confuse myself and everyone else. The end, I'm not so sure about, but I imagine there are competent theories in existence dealing with that, too.

And I don't have criticism for those who don't agree with me, either. If we don't agree, well, that's life, I suppose, and I wish you well. Unlike you, though, burning doesn't come into it, not unless you're careless with matches.

Well?

No need to respond to Dixieanna anymore.

He got himself deleted.....

Well?

No need to respond to Dixieanna anymore.

He got himself deleted.....

Really? Maybe I should go back and read the rest of the thread.

Some of the confusion between creationists and evolution seems to be the use of the term 'theory'. Creationists take that to mean it's a guess or it isn't proven.

The scientific method begins with observation, not with theories. The scientist sees something, he tests various possible causes against what he sees throwing out the ones that don't hold up. Then he tests some more, continually trying to narrow down the possible causes until he comes up with one that holds up no matter what test he throws at it. Ah, but that is only the beginning.

He then publishes his ideas in scientific journals where other scientists take a crack at disproving his hypothesis (it's not a theory yet).

These attempts to disprove the hypothesis go on until the scientific community finally says 'We can't disprove this hypothesis'. Then it becomes a Theory.

But scientists are a sceptical bunch and will always jump at the chance to disprove something. The Theory of Evolution has been around a long time and generations of scientists have taken a crack at disproving it to no avail.

Creationism (and other religious doctrine) was proposed as a fact. Then religious scholars did research looking for examples to prove their fact true.

See the difference? Science is about observing and then trying to disprove proposed causes. Religion is about stating beliefs as facts first and then looking for ways to prove that the beliefs are true.

Some of the confusion between creationists and evolution seems to be the use of the term 'theory'. Creationists take that to mean it's a guess or it isn't proven.

The scientific method begins with observation, not with theories. The scientist sees something, he tests various possible causes against what he sees throwing out the ones that don't hold up. Then he tests some more, continually trying to narrow down the possible causes until he comes up with one that holds up no matter what test he throws at it. Ah, but that is only the beginning.

He then publishes his ideas in scientific journals where other scientists take a crack at disproving his hypothesis (it's not a theory yet).

These attempts to disprove the hypothesis go on until the scientific community finally says 'We can't disprove this hypothesis'. Then it becomes a Theory.

But scientists are a sceptical bunch and will always jump at the chance to disprove something. The Theory of Evolution has been around a long time and generations of scientists have taken a crack at disproving it to no avail.

Creationism (and other religious doctrine) was proposed as a fact. Then religious scholars did research looking for examples to prove their fact true.

See the difference? Science is about observing and then trying to disprove proposed causes. Religion is about stating beliefs as facts first and then looking for ways to prove that the beliefs are true.

Nicely put. You might want to save that off somewhere, you'll probably have to repeat it a few times on different threads.

Cerean;13289560']I'm with you on that. So many willfully ignorant people, so little time to laugh at them all.

Yes.

Yes there are.

Don't'cha just love exact language?

Really? Maybe I should go back and read the rest of the thread.

He just proved the TOE. Those unable to adapt and attempt to fight a stronger creature than themselves get removed from the gene pool.

Really? Maybe I should go back and read the rest of the thread.

Nahh!

The condensed version is on the mod board.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545223

Nahh!

The condensed version is on the mod board.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545223

Wow, that was quite the suicide-by-Mod. And so unnecessary.

He just proved the TOE. Those unable to adapt and attempt to fight a stronger creature than themselves get removed from the gene pool.

/thread

He just proved the TOE. Those unable to adapt and attempt to fight a stronger creature than themselves get removed from the gene pool.

Well, I wouldn't call it "the gene pool"- as far as I can tell, he can still procreate. He did remove himself from "the NSG pool" though. :p

It's worse than that, it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the wolf of Christian creationism in the sheep's clothing of scientific theory. The most obvious example of this is the creationist textbook Of Pandas And People, in which all earlier references to "God" and "creation" were changed to refer to a "Designer" and to "intelligent design." ID was contrived specifically as the cutting edge of a wedge designed to bring Christianity into public science education.

Didn't I put up a reply about this exact thing?

Well?

No need to respond to Dixieanna anymore.

He got himself deleted.....

Well that's no fun.

There's that moral superiority I mentioned earlier, this time from the science end. Strange how after 25+ years of listening to and participating in this argument, both extremes sound the same.

All I know is what I observe, and I observe that those who choose the Word of God seem a hell of a lot happier on average than science-only folks. Demonstrations of faith are all around you.

It's about the yin and yang. Balance.

I like your way of thinking . I guess in the strictest sense I would be classifed as an atheist/evolutionist but,most of my personal beliefs are based on rules from Christianity(my original religon)Islam,Hinduism,and Buddism.The only thing missing is that I don't worship God/Allah(Yes they're the same deity guys!),any of the many Hindu gods,and nor do I seek to reach Nirvana.All that said I'm very at peace with myself.

Well, I wouldn't call it "the gene pool"- as far as I can tell, he can still procreate. He did remove himself from "the NSGene pool" though. :p

Fixed.

Fixed.

*shakes head* I truly did mean "NSG"...it rhymes with "gene"...

:(

This is so lame! Defying Darwin's theories is like pretending Edison's inventions didn't actually exist.

This is so lame! Defying Darwin's theories is like pretending Edison's inventions didn't actually exist.We are already a lot further than Darwin or Edison. Darwin had no genetic research to support his theories, but we do. Creationism has nothing to support it.

I do not see any conflict in believing in god and also accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Of course, my god isn't of the omnipotent Abrahamic type, so that frees things up a bit. I tend to be of the opinion that perhaps she's the one who made the laws of the universe what they are, and after that had little influence except perhaps to connect spiritually with sentient beings.

Maybe god is a 13 year old nerd and we're her science project.

Was that the inference? I wasn't sure so did not deign to reply.
It were, since i really wasn't sure what you were talking about. It was a cool whimsy, even if it was summarily snuffed.

No way would I send any of my poor, innocent puppets unprotected into the wilds of an NSG religion debate.Never a better place, i should think :p

Besides, I'm a devout Apatheist. It's against my religion.Odd then i should be a Sympatheist, but non-practicing. I do it for the ceremony!

No more than a colonoscopy. If your proctologist has Parkinson's.

/threadwin

"Ka-zen", a term for only a select few of us here on NSstates?
<.<
>.>

that was nothing more then ego-stroking, mental masterbatory horse shit.
This summates *SO* many threads!