Science academies around world urge evolution lessons

[Leonard]

Not at all. You merely prove you can arrive unerringly at the assumptions with which you began.

Your a priories dictate the debate, and you are entirely predictable. This is quite a boring conversation, which I have had thousands of times, ALWAYS won, and am disinclined to engage in again. I have given you direction for genuine thought, and you have mouthed the same predictable shibboleths. Most disappointing, my boy! Most disappointing......

Incidentally, I tend to agree that speciation has occured. That is probably why Noah was able to bring 2 of each kind (probably meaning 'genus' not 'species') on the ark. (Yes I am stuck in Riceour's "First Level of Naivete"!) The problem lies in breaking the line of 'genus'. See the remarkable work by Denton in the area of molecular biology.

Again, I'm sorry, but this topic just doesn't give me as much enjoyment as it did many years ago. If I just bow out, I hope you will excuse me.

[dd_8630]

Not at all. You merely prove you can arrive unerringly at the assumptions with which you began.

Dispite the fact that I answered your 'QUESTIONS THAT DESTROY EVOLUTION'. Dispite the fact that you entered this debate, saw you couldn't defend yourself, and decided to 'bow out' as if you were a graceful debater in the first place (holding down shift while typing does not get mine nor anyone elses attention). Oh, and you fail to answer my questions. I thought this was a quid pro quo basis? And if we're going to be picky, the plural of 'a priori' is just 'a priori'.

Further, you say I arrive unnerringly and the assumptions with which I began. Are you not doing exactly the same when you conclude your god as the creator of everything?

I'm going to see this as Evolution surviving yet another Creationist. Any more?

Edited June 22, 2006 by dd_8630

[Rober H]

Christians don't "define God". We don't need to explain God.

Evolution is not a fact.

The bible is our criterion for truth. You don't have to accept that and we don't have to accept the beliefs of non-believers.

Real simple.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

dd_8630, are you an atheist or agnostic.?

[peaceafire]

For me personally, all it took was a personal experience with God changing my life in ways that no man had ever touched me to Know God is real, I am not much for man based facts or figures to explain life's most troubling situations as man has let me down more often than not, yet I turn to God and ask His Truth and those troubling situations become blessings. I give Praise to my Creator today, what a wonderful world He has made.

[Nero's Fiddle]

Speciation of the Hawthron Fly has been observed.

I am not aware of this paritcular experiment, but, if it indeed comes under the umbrella of micro-evolution, then this is a poor argument.

Creationists believe in micro-evolution as well. We even believe that wolves, dogs, and coyotes likely derive from a single canine-esque ancestor. But not from rocks.

You continue to state that "evolution" (I assume you include the other five varieties, ie cosmic, macro, etc) is a proven, empirically observed fact, when in fact it is no such thing. It is a theory, the "evidence" for which has been eroded to the point that it is ridiculous to imply that a person subscribing to evolution doesn't have to exercise at least some degree of faith.

As for negative social impacts of evolutionism, have you ever looked at the cover of Darwin's Origin of Species? Then you know the full title. If you have ever read the book, you know that Darwin applies the concept thereof to human beings. How can such racism be ignored as socially unacceptable?

Perhaps you have never heard of an event that took place some years after the publishing of the book. Basing the exhibit upon Darwin's assertion that aboriginal peoples were the least evolved "race" from an ape-like creature, a zoo (whether in America or in England, I do not recall) captured such a person from Australia and left him naked in a cage with apes for years.

This was a human being.

But, according to evolution, we are all animals anyway. Why shouldn't we treat each other like this? We have no purpose: we are an accident and of no more worth than sludge on a rock, which we once were.

[Rober H]

Speciation of the Hawthron Fly has been observed.

I am not aware of this paritcular experiment, but, if it indeed comes under the umbrella of micro-evolution, then this is a poor argument.

Creationists believe in micro-evolution as well. We even believe that wolves, dogs, and coyotes likely derive from a single canine-esque ancestor. But not from rocks.

You continue to state that "evolution" (I assume you include the other five varieties, ie cosmic, macro, etc) is a proven, empirically observed fact, when in fact it is no such thing. It is a theory, the "evidence" for which has been eroded to the point that it is ridiculous to imply that a person subscribing to evolution doesn't have to exercise at least some degree of faith.

As for negative social impacts of evolutionism, have you ever looked at the cover of Darwin's Origin of Species? Then you know the full title. If you have ever read the book, you know that Darwin applies the concept thereof to human beings. How can such racism be ignored as socially unacceptable?

Perhaps you have never heard of an event that took place some years after the publishing of the book. Basing the exhibit upon Darwin's assertion that aboriginal peoples were the least evolved "race" from an ape-like creature, a zoo (whether in America or in England, I do not recall) captured such a person from Australia and left him naked in a cage with apes for years.

This was a human being.

But, according to evolution, we are all animals anyway. Why shouldn't we treat each other like this? We have no purpose: we are an accident and of no more worth than sludge on a rock, which we once were.

Thanks, I like your writing style and your concise answer. I am impressed.

[Nero's Fiddle]

Thanks, I like your writing style and your concise answer. I am impressed.

Dankeshoen (Thanks muchly)!

[Kabowd]

"the intelligent people" must realise that it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does to believe in ID or creationism.

I'm sorry, but how does this work? Evolutionary mechanisms are debateable, yes, but the fact that evolution has, is, and will continue to occur is scientific fact; that is, empirically proven and logically undeniable.

You sound like Carl Sagan "...all this is, or was and ever will be..." (which is a phrase he borrowed from Scripture and applied to nature by the way). But anywho, evolution has not been proven. There is zero evidence that one species has evolved into another species. There is adaption within species, but no evidence that anything has ever evolved into an entirely new kind.

For instance, even Darwin's famous finches that he "discovered" in the Galapgos Islands. These are supposedly the "evidence of evolutionary change" that can be seen "right before your very eyes!". However, the changes in the beaks simply shows adaption, not evolution. The finches remained finches throughout the entire cycle. And that's another key point, it was a cyclical change. When the seasons changed, the beaks reverted back to their orginal shape/size.

Exploring and studying evidence of intelligence is a respected part of science in every other field. In archeology, when they uncover an ancient item, they immediately study to see if it is something natural (for instance a rock) or whether it is something designed by an intelligent agent (for instance a tool or weapon). In criminology or forensic science, when they have a crime scene and a victim is involved, the pathologists immediately study the evidence to determine whether or not the victim died of natural causes or if they were the victim of an intelligent being. Or for instance cryptographers unscramble various codes to determine whether they are merely random sequences or messages designed by intelligent beings trying to convey something. So why is it considered so far-fetched or "non-scientific" to include Intelligent Design as one of the possibilities of our origins?

[Leonard]

Not at all. You merely prove you can arrive unerringly at the assumptions with which you began.

Dispite the fact that I answered your 'QUESTIONS THAT DESTROY EVOLUTION'. Dispite the fact that you entered this debate, saw you couldn't defend yourself, and decided to 'bow out' as if you were a graceful debater in the first place (holding down shift while typing does not get mine nor anyone elses attention). Oh, and you fail to answer my questions. I thought this was a quid pro quo basis? And if we're going to be picky, the plural of 'a priori' is just 'a priori'.

Further, you say I arrive unnerringly and the assumptions with which I began. Are you not doing exactly the same when you conclude your god as the creator of everything?

I'm going to see this as Evolution surviving yet another Creationist. Any more?

Well, unlike some, I don't regard evolution as a theological argument. It is quite possible to believe God created through evolution, and still be a perfectly fine Christian. My questions are purely of a philosophical and scientific nature. For me, the argument one way or the other does not impinge on my 'ultimate.' So perhaps with such a view, the argument simply doesn't mean as much to me one way or the other.

I'm over 50, and have had the discussion for 34 years, and it just isn't that interesting to me any more. Tell you what I'll do; I'll go back over your last response, and see if there's something that tickles my fancy! If there is, well, I'll post on it.

Really, I didn't mean to be dismissive or discourteous. I've just been in sort of a bad mood the last few decades.............

[dd_8630]

dd_8630, are you an atheist or agnostic.?

Wiccan. Though if it weren't for my experiances gained from it, I would be most certainly an Athiest.

Christians don't "define God". We don't need to explain God.

If you are going to tell me that 'God' exists, I want to know what you mean by God. Do you mean my God? My Goddess? Shiva? Diana? Perhaps Buddha, if your definition is broad enough?

Evolution is not a fact.

Predicted, observed, and falsified. It's not impossible for an alternative theory to come about in the future that a) has nothing to do with Evolution, and b) explains all Evolution does. However, the odds of this happening are beyond infintesamal.

I am not aware of this paritcular experiment, but, if it indeed comes under the umbrella of micro-evolution, then this is a poor argument.

The Hawthorn Fly is a macroscopic insect, and has been observed to specieate; that is, during the period of observation, it evolved from one species (group of organisms that can reproduce to bear fertile offspring) into two seperate organisms (that is, they cannot interbreed to bear fertile offspring). What's more, this is not a scientific laboratory test but a natural observation as enviromental conditions changed (I think one evolved to eat a certain type of apple or somesuch, I can't remember).

Also, how can direct evidence of 'macro'evolution occuring be a poor argument?

You continue to state that "evolution" (I assume you include the other five varieties, ie cosmic, macro, etc) is a proven, empirically observed fact, when in fact it is no such thing. It is a theory, the "evidence" for which has been eroded to the point that it is ridiculous to imply that a person subscribing to evolution doesn't have to exercise at least some degree of faith.

By evolution I am referring to the biological, natural, and, effectively, random change over time of one species into (an)other(s), by the process of natural selection (among others). This is a scientific fact. It has been observed, tested, falsified, passed the scientific criteria (doesn't violate Ockham's Razor, is progressive etc) and so on.

A scientific fact is a scientific hypothesis that has been repeatedly and rigourously proven to be true, and that has scientific consensus, and that conforms to the Scientific Method, and that.... etc etc ad infinitum et nauseum.

The evidence for evolution has not been eroded. Interpritation of the data has changed, yes; new data has been accumulated, yes; some old data has been shown to be false (Lamarckism in total, for example), yes; but the data remains. It has not been 'eroded to the point that' one needs religious faith to accept it as true. The rigour of its evidence (Deep Time from geology and history, the fossil record from Archaeo-paeleontology & Anthropology, genetic markers from Biology and Genotechnology etc etc) is such that the evidence is overwhelming. Not in the least eroded.

As for negative social impacts of evolutionism, have you ever looked at the cover of Darwin's Origin of Species? Then you know the full title. If you have ever read the book, you know that Darwin applies the concept thereof to human beings. How can such racism be ignored as socially unacceptable?

Darwin's book was published in a racist time, when non-caucasians where viewed as 'lower' beings; this was seen as the norm. Darwin is a product of his time. Furthermore, Evolutionary theory/fact exists independant of Darwin's method of conveying it.

Perhaps you have never heard of an event that took place some years after the publishing of the book. Basing the exhibit upon Darwin's assertion that aboriginal peoples were the least evolved "race" from an ape-like creature, a zoo (whether in America or in England, I do not recall) captured such a person from Australia and left him naked in a cage with apes for years.

This was a human being.

Yes, I have heard that story. Perhaps you have not heard that non-caucasians were seen as animals long before Darwin?

But, according to evolution, we are all animals anyway. Why shouldn't we treat each other like this? We have no purpose: we are an accident and of no more worth than sludge on a rock, which we once were.

Both our Gods prohibit the abusal of another human being; your Jesus said 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', my Rede says 'An it harm none, do what ye will'. Evolution has no say in morality; it is an explination (the most complete and succicient we have) of how life is as it is today, nothing more.

no evidence that anything has ever evolved into an entirely new kind.

I repeat: the Hawthorn Fly

So why is it considered so far-fetched or "non-scientific" to include Intelligent Design as one of the possibilities of our origins?

Because of the simple fac that ID is, by any definition of the phrase, unscientific. The examples you gave are correctly scientific because they are just that: scientifically based. ID is not. Irreducable Complexity is subjective and has no evidence backing it; it is a fanciful idea. An intreguing idea, I'll grant you, but an theologically based idea nontheless.

Edited June 22, 2006 by dd_8630