Even the Vatican doesn't believe in "Intelligent Design

[Jabe Adaks]

We are all children of the aliens.

Jabe

[Isleh]

warsloth: I'll have to read through that link, but there is still no hard proof that evolution is fact, ...

Maybe you should read the material before you make your second statement?

Humor me for a moment. Consider that evolution is fact, would that change your belief that the universe is still God's creation?

Arguing from the point of view of religious doctrine.

Intelligent Design and Evolution both agree on the age of the universe.

Accepting that God created the universe and accepting evolution supports God's Omniscience and all powerful. That God had the foresight to make his creation capable of allowing single cell life to evolve into complex forms of life from the moment of it's creation.

Accepting that God created the universe and accepting Intelligent Design does not support God's Omniscience, that he is not all powerful. That God could not foresee all the events necessary to bring his creation to it's conclusion, that God lacks the foresight to make his creation capable of allowing single cell life to evolve into complex forms of life, or that God is whimsical and had decided to change his creation and thus does not know what final form his creation will be at it's conclusion.

[X'an Shin]

I'll have to read through that link, but there is still no hard proof that evolution is fact, which is why it remains theory, and not law. Too many folks like to make that jump and just take it as such.

As Isleh said, thanks for not reading it before making that statement.

The fact that you can still catch a cold every winter is proof that evolution exists. We have actually eye-witnessed species evolve within the past 100 years.

That's fact, frer. Not just theory.

[Ekade]

The fact that you can catch a cold proves that you can catch a cold.


Last I checked, evolution is not fact. Some claim it is. Some claim it isn't.

All you can do is look at the evidence and theories offered and decide for yourself. Any "proof" or "fact" someone attempts to offer is only going to be their opinion.


I read up on the Scientific Method. There are a lot of opinions floating around that come across as "Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that..." If one actually read what scientists write, it does not sound like that at all.

One should expect something akin to the following from objective and scientific writings:

No claims should be made that "The Scientific Method" produces infallible solutions. State rather: "On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that ..."

So, when you hear someone ranting about the infallability of Science.. and how it has "proven" anything, they are more than likely just feeding you their personal, quasi-scientific, beliefs.


Science attempts to prove.. but it also knows that it can't. Science must question itself constantly to be true to itself. Science is supposed to doubt itself.

Religion is not supposed to doubt itself.

The fact that you can still catch a cold every winter is proof that evolution exists.

Is that a religious statement, or a scientific statement?

[Isleh]

The fact that you can catch a cold proves that you can catch a cold.


Last I checked, evolution is not fact. Some claim it is. Some claim it isn't.

All you can do is look at the evidence and theories offered and decide for yourself. Any "proof" or "fact" someone attempts to offer is only going to be their opinion.


I read up on the Scientific Method. There are a lot of opinions floating around that come across as "Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that..." If one actually read what scientists write, it does not sound like that at all.

One should expect something akin to the following from objective and scientific writings:

No claims should be made that "The Scientific Method" produces infallible solutions. State rather: "On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that ..."

So, when you hear someone ranting about the infallability of Science.. and how it has "proven" anything, they are more than likely just feeding you their personal, quasi-scientific, beliefs.


Science attempts to prove.. but it also knows that it can't. Science must question itself constantly to be true to itself. Science is supposed to doubt itself.

Religion is not supposed to doubt itself.

The fact that you can still catch a cold every winter is proof that evolution exists.

Is that a religious statement, or a scientific statement?

That is true if you assume that science can prove nothing. That is however, not true. You, in fact, could not post your post if some scientific theories were not proven.

[Shensen]

Science has proven many things, but they haven't been able offer anything conclusive as it relates to the origins of life.

As Xan mentioned, the common cold and other viruses that evolve to "outwit" medicines used to kill them off is proof enough of evolution for me. So we have these organisms that evolve into new strains to avoid their own destruction. Self preservation - where the heck does that come from?

But while science can prove that these viral strains are evolving, they cannot prove where they came from. How were single cells created? Did we evolve from single cells over the course of hundreds of billions of years? If so, does that mean several hundred billion years from now the common cold could be a sentient being? :P

I figure by that time we'll have killed ourselves off having taken over every last parcel of land and used every last resource like the giant plague we are.

Just ranting nonsense.

[Ekade]

That is true if you assume that science can prove nothing. That is however, not true. You, in fact, could not post your post if some scientific theories were not proven.

According to what I was reading, the things that Science will declare "law" are the more simple, measurable, predictable, and repeatable things. Things that are more complex than that are theories.


So, if person A says you can prove something as complex as evolution, and person B says you can't.. the pure scientist in me will tend to believe person B.

If you could not tell, I am a fan of both science and religion.

[Isleh]

Science has proven many things, but they haven't been able offer anything conclusive as it relates to the origins of life.

As Xan mentioned, the common cold and other viruses that evolve to "outwit" medicines used to kill them off is proof enough of evolution for me. So we have these organisms that evolve into new strains to avoid their own destruction. Self preservation - where the heck does that come from?

But while science can prove that these viral strains are evolving, they cannot prove where they came from. How were single cells created? Did we evolve from single cells over the course of hundreds of billions of years? If so, does that mean several hundred billion years from now the common cold could be a sentient being? :P

I figure by that time we'll have killed ourselves off having taken over every last parcel of land and used every last resource like the giant plague we are.

Just ranting nonsense.

Evolution is proven. We see it. The origins of life based off evolution is a theory and uses something proven to support it.

That is the distinction that needs to be made and when someone says evolution has not been proven, they are wrong. When the they say the origins of life based off evolution has not been proven, they are correct. However, that theory it is based on some pretty strong empirical data. Thus science cannot offer conclusive proof of the origins of life via evolution but it uses something proven and strong empirical data to suggest a plausible scientific theory.

Intelligent Design and the origins of life via God can never be proven since it relies on faith. It has no place being even presented as a scientific theory.

( Just enjoying the debate BTW, no hard feelings )

[Isleh]

That is true if you assume that science can prove nothing. That is however, not true. You, in fact, could not post your post if some scientific theories were not proven.

According to what I was reading, the things that Science will declare "law" are the more simple, measurable, predictable, and repeatable things. Things that are more complex than that are theories.


So, if person A says you can prove something as complex as evolution, and person B says you can't.. the pure scientist in me will tend to believe person B.

If you could not tell, I am a fan of both science and religion.

Google "Nylon Eating Bacteria"

[Ekade]

Science has proven many things, but they haven't been able offer anything conclusive as it relates to the origins of life.

Exactly.

This is why the scientist in me chafes when people say "colds prove evolution".


The only thing that can be proven is that the internet allows us to exercise our stupidity! I am all about that!

[Sai'nu]

Science: We started as Single-celled organisms and 'evolved' into what we are now. We can link this back through the evolution of many animals. But, we can't seem to find our own missing link to the past.

Religion: God created everything.

Just using these two ideas we wind up with many very different views of things.

You've got the pure scientist that doesn't believe in things they can't trace with something factual on a data chart. Factual in their eyes, mind you.

Same for the pure religious person. Faith means accepting that whichever religious practice you follow... means accepting that some higher power is the causation of everything. If it is there, it is because that higher power put it there.

Then there is that odd mixture. The people who believe you need both. Science and Religion to explain things.

Do we evolve? Or, are we simply mapped out with an intended ending point somewhere along the human lifespan?

I think there is room for both. I'm often puzzled by polotics when subjects like this come about though as well. We seperate church and state... but we state ourselves as "One Nation, Under God."

Personally, I have to agree though. Teaching both in the way they were typically taught as I was going to school always left me confused because you got the feeling that the teacher didn't know which one to tell you was fact. The religious view; or the scientific view.

[Krusshyk]

The bacteria thing is a big one in recent science for the pro-evolution argument. But if you say evolution doesn't exist, I would have to ask, "Do you really understand what it is implying?"

Really, all it is saying is that nature (for whatever reason) is arranged in such a manner that certain characteristics among individual creatures are more conducive to surviving, and most importantly reproducing that trait in subsequent populations, than others. The creatures not possessing a specific trait breed less successfully than those possessing it, and subsequently become less numerous among the progressing generations until eventually the existence of that less successful trait is completely erased from the genetic structure of an entire species.

Evolution and the origin of life? Eh...who knows. But evolution does exist, and I think the people arguing against it are lumping that theory in with the theory of the origin of life, which is not declared scientific fact.

[warsloth]

Okay, the link shows they have watched and witnessed (what is considered micro evolution/natural selection) "evolution" among microbes, and consider it proven that "evolution" takes place.
Their base for Macro Evolution (all things sprang from one original lifeform) is this observation along with radiocarbon dating?

Evolution among microbes may be something we can witness and consider "fact" but the larger scale theory still holds no more water.

Isleh Evolution changes nothing about my belief, being true or untrue. I usually don't stake a claim in the creation theory chaos, mine is a stance of neutrality.

Ekade Werd

X'an a type of evolution among microbes and certain species is something we can see, yes. This may be considered fact.
Does this mean the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" that all things came from one life billions of years ago... hardly provable. You got me on a technicallity. What is considered Macro Evolution, has not been proven.

I can name my cat "God" and state that God does exist as fact. I can tell you that I have evidence, because God is right here in front of me, and I have pictures. But that does not mean I am talking about the same thing.

[Ekade]

Google "Nylon Eating Bacteria"

I did.

According to one article, the NEB throws a lot of wrenches into the theory of evolution as well as ID.



On the topic of complexity..

In closing, we get back to why ID is the death of science. Provine, a Science Historian at Cornell says that ID isutterly boring, claiming Everything thats complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it. What Provine is missing is that the same goes for Darwinism Where did this tree come from?, It evolved. Okay then, where did this fish come from and how did it get these weird lights, They evolved sometime during the fishes evolution as it evolved. So in a sense, ID did it is no more convicted than It evolved.

What they are talking about is that ultimately, ID, and evolution can be traced back to the point of "hell if I know".

Is evolution is the "smart" way to go? Nope. Scientifically speaking, it is no more or less valid than ID or even Creationism for that matter.

[Shensen]

LOL. All bow down to Whar's cat!

/worship

/sneak him some catnip