Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
 

Of course there isn't. That's because evolution was considered proven as soon as the secular world realized that there was a model for the great philosophical problem of where we came from that didn't involve any greater being. Evolutionists don't feel the need to prove something that they feel is obviously better on philosophical grounds. Evolutionists also refuse to lend credence to anything they disagree with, so, by definition, there is no credible debate.

"Something from nothing" is actually an age-old philosophical problem, and lies at the heart of all this nonsense. Obviously, something exists. Obviously, it had to come from somewhere. There are only two options: what we see has existed forever or something else existed forever and produced what we see from nothing. (I have never seen a credible argument for the idea that the universe willed itself into existence at some point in the distant past, though it is an entertaining idea.)

There are a great many people who name themselves as evolutionists who hold to the second theory, simply because they don't like the idea that everything we see today has existed forever, or that evolution, in all its complexity, happened without some outside assistance. The evolutionist variant of it simply holds that something outside of the rules of the universe was involved in the initial formative process, much like a watchmaker builds a watch, winds it up, and lets it go. This approach avoids all of the current difficulties with the fossil record, the increasing complexity which is an apparent violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and all of the general problems with "How did such-and-such evolve?"

Of course, such people are rejected by the evolution camp because they suggest the existence of a higher being, despite the fact that they use the same evidence to come to a frightfully similar solution, complete with all the same history, and despite the fact that they name themselves as "evolutionists."

(shrug) But then, we've talked about evolution before, and I'm ok with disagreeing. I just think that the close-minded exclusivity of your camp is entertaining, really, from a philosophical standpoint. :)

The interesting thing is that most (all?) of the points you bring up (the old 2nd law argument, apparent difficulties of the fossil record, etc.) are not problems for the theory of evolution. These are only issues in the minds of creationists. Each has been refuted. I don't even understand alot of what you're talking about above (the universe willed itself into existence?).

Here's the deal: The theory of evolution is the only theory that has been put forth that adequately explains the evidence. Period. This theory has not been arrived at lightly or without any critical thought. It's not as if mainstream science has somehow "missed" something or is hiding some embarassing fact that shoots the theory down.

If you happen to have that "smoking gun" of evidence that proves the theory wrong, by all means, enlighten the world. If not, then I think you are forced to seriously consider the fact that the theory might just be correct.

Mike

I'm Christian, happily believe in evolution in all its fullness, and just assume God started that off. I don't, and can't make myself, subscribe to the intelligent design stuff that I read about in Time magazine talking about some sort of later kicking off point as "explained" by fossils.

And make no mistake here, getting my head around evolution vs Genesis was probably the biggest challenge for me in Christianity, a decision I made in my mid 20s.

Although, now I think about it, BlueSky's giant aardvark 31 years ago is also a possibility, as I'm only 30...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
 

David, do you have a degree in Bio/Biochem? if you do, let's get together here in Boston over a beer and talk. if not, let's get together here in Boston over a beer and talk. :)

For my part, I am a-religious, but I've read the Bible twice, 3x in specific areas. Just picked up the New Testament the other day for a good read of the text. I find it odd that ID doesn't play up the innate math in everything, which to me, is the strongest evidence for evolution, but it would also make a compelling argument for ID as well.

Guys, it's all about multiple, random, non-specific chemical bonds, in other words, we evolved and are alive due to surface area.

Don't be hater. :(

nope sorry, I don't have an degree in much of anything aside from my associates.

Believe me when I say I'm my own worse enemy. I struggle with faith daily but the more I read, the more my new beliefs make sence. I have yet to fully read the bible. I got a bit lost in the Old Testiment. Right now I'm reading "A Case For Faith" by Lee Strobel. It talks a lot about this very topic.

One thing to keep in mind that it's not just Christians that hold what's on the Bible as teh truth, but the Jews too, after all we just added to their book. For that matter, the Koran that is read by the Islams isn't too distant.

Beer, sure, I'm up for beer.

Another thing to keep in mind though is that something isn't true based on the number of people that believe it to be true.

Here's my story: I used to scoff at the theory of evolution and took every opportunity I could to lambast it. Then one day I tried lambasting it to someone who knew more about the theory than I did. I decided at that point to actually *learn* about the theory - mostly because I just *knew* it was flawed and my increased knowledge of the theory would only strengthen my arguments against it.

Funny thing happened. The more I learned about it, the fewer and fewer holes I found in it. Then one day it hit me - maybe all of these scientists that have been studying this for 150+ years actually had it right. Evolution was the best explanation.

So now - because I have been there - I implore anyone who has problems with the theory of evolution to actually *learn* about the theory. And not from the "answers in genesis" or "ex nihilo" or ICR websites. Make a real effort to learn and then if you still have problems with the theory, at least you'll be able to debate it using sound logic.

Mike

Oh...and I'm for drinking a beer and talking about this...what's half way between Boston and Alabama? :>)

Mike

science explains how...................
God/Bible explain why.......................

I'm still sticking with the aardvark theory.

Virginia?

Woo hoo! I'll be there with my learnin' cap and and my drinkin' cap. :)

According to the bible, did dinosaurs exist before or after Adam and Eve?

Great David, I'll PM/email you week after next, off to Vegas tomorrow for the week.

it's funny that the more I read the bible, the less faith I have in God of the Bible. And a lot less faith in the paragons of virtue like David, Jacob (stealing birthright from Esau), etc. in the Old Testament. These were bad guys. Paul in the NT is pretty much the anti-Christ.

BTW, evolution, I believe, supports the idea of a higher being. whether it's god or not is a whole other question.

I could go to Virginia. then DTW could come up and it'd be a great time.

One word: BBQ. OK, 2, beer and BBQ.

Hey guys,

For some reason evolution vs. creationism has weighed a lot on my mind for a long time. The one area that is a stumbling block for me is that Human intelligence so greatly exceeds other primates and all animals for that matter. We are in a totally different ball park even to the second most intelligent animal on the planet, say a minimum of 70% greater ability to think. Where-as say with speed (we are Porsche people after all) the difference between the top animal a cheetah and say a gazelle is maybe 5% (don't know the exact numbers, but I don't think I am way off). Anyway in my mind it is not natures way to have one dominant being. Why were we the only animal to develop such intelligence. When the advantages of intelligence are far superior to any other evolutionary advantage? Just food for thought I am not picking sides.

Very good question. While we are at the top of the food chain from an intelligence standpoint, there are other animals out there with some impressive intelligence (dolphins for one). One thing to keep in mind is that the geological time scales at work here are really beyond human comprehension. It has taken a long time for us to get where we are. Who knows, maybe 100 million years from now, descendants of dolphins will rule the Earth? There are many other species of animals that have developed the ability to use tools, communicate, etc., so we don't have a monopoly on "intelligence".

From an evolutionary standpoint, maybe we were the only animals that *required* increased intelligence to survive? After all, we're not very fast to catch other prey. We had to be smarter to survive and so, over eons and eons the smarter populations of primates evolved into modern day humans. There is alot of evidence that this, in fact, occured. It could have been that apes evolved in an environment where increased intelligence was of little evolutionary benefit (plentiful, easily obtained food for instance).

I think you're thinking is on the right track, though...

Mike

Ahh, there's hope to convert mike yet! :D

Hey, I'm easy to convert. All I need is evidence! :>)

Mike