Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[SkepticThinker]

It's a pretty commonly known theory; Darwin's theory of evolution? Darwinian theory?, Neo-Darwinism some might call it today if you prefer?- But 'Darwinism ' is the generally accepted catch all

Darwinism - Wikipedia

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory

There are valid scientific doubts about the entire premise of Darwinism of course, it is not 'undeniable fact' as some insist

So I think we agree on this?

What's wrong with "evolution" and "the theory of evolution." Plenty of people far beyond Darwin have contributed to our current knowledge of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What's wrong with "evolution" and "the theory of evolution." Plenty of people far beyond Darwin have contributed to our current knowledge of evolution.

And plenty have also refuted the entire theory, nothing wrong with that, it's how science works, progresses, I think we are in agreement

 

[DavidFirth]

Nope. What advancements in knowledge have we obtained from reading ancient holy texts that come anywhere close to matching everything we have gleaned using the scientific method?

How close are scientists to truth?

 

[gnostic]

I believe there are realms beyond the physical and nature spirits/entities that involve themselves with the progress of the physical plane. Ultimately, I believe everything is designed by consciousness.

That’s all, also “unfalsifiable”, “unscientific”, “unverifiable”, have no evidences, and also no proofs.

I am not a follower of scientism and also consider other wisdom traditions in forming my personal views.

I also don’t follow scientism, and I rarely waste my times on most philosophies, mainly because they often all talk, no actions, and I don’t consider these philosophies to be “wisdom”. But traditions, yes.

And right now, I think your talk of cosmic consciousness are no better than that of YEC or ID, all of them pseudoscience...propaganda BS.

 

[George-ananda]

That’s all, also “unfalsifiable”, “unscientific”, “unverifiable”, have no evidences, and also no proofs.


I also don’t follow scientism, and I rarely waste my times on most philosophies, mainly because they often all talk, no actions, and I don’t consider these philosophies to be “wisdom”. But traditions, yes.

And right now, I think your talk of cosmic consciousness are no better than that of YEC or ID, all of them pseudoscience...propaganda BS.

Sounds like scientism to me.

 

[gnostic]

Sounds like scientism to me.

Now you are being ignorant.

Philosophies of science is one thing, but actual science involving work and research, is entirely different.

My background in applied science, as a tool to do my works, science that involved in civil engineering. Much of science, in my course, involved in physics and maths, with some chemistry, and the science were mostly to with mechanics (eg forces) or the properties of materials (eg properties of steel, timbers, concrete, etc) that involve testings.

All the science that I have studied, have application in the real world.

I have never studied any philosophy as subjects, at any university.

And I don’t waste my times on scientism, any more than I would with parapsychology, occultism or spiritualism, which are apparently your forte, your personal beliefs - fake knowledge and pseudoscience.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

On the contrary most people of faith I know acknowledge their faith as such.

This often doesn't apply to other beliefs

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..."

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

You are entitled to your own Beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own logic. Blind faith or any other type of faith, requires no evidence at all. Faith is a mental construct that requires only "mental evidence" to sustain and confirm itself. Like all mental conditions it is totally subjective and self-sustaining. People choose to see and believe only what they want to see and believe. It is cognitive dissonance and the "Bandwagon Effect", that allows most people to ignore what is obvious and logical(the king not wearing clothes), and accept what is impossible without the need for objective evidence(other than dismissive rhetoric and excuses). There are those that believe that "Alf" is a real cosmic intergalactic traveller, and make shrines to praise him. The newest Religion now is Jediism, and is based completely on Star War characters. There are even those that believe that they will live forever, only if they live their entire lives in pious servitude. But, of course they must DIE first to collect. Does any rational person see a problem with that scenario? So, YES, any rational person would need a bit more information then just faith alone, before making this kind of commitment. Maybe the same kind of evidence that you try to misrepresent from Richard, like "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", to mean beyond ANY Doubt? Fortunately, science does not need your approval, or your faith. But don't worry, there will always be pseudo-scientific-fleas biting the back of the elephant in science. There will always be those seeking attention, personal relevance, recognition, and self-validation, based only on ignorance and closed-mindedness. Anything, but to actually put in the years of studies, work, and research necessary to break the shackles of ignorance, and reach intellectual enlightenment. Don

 

[Subduction Zone]

And plenty have also refuted the entire theory, nothing wrong with that, it's how science works, progresses, I think we are in agreement

Why make such an obviously false claim? What good do you think this will do?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That's because your points were sad attempts at making points at best.

I think that it is YOUR points that demonstrate a very sad attempt to save face, not faith. Science is certainly not about discovering the truth about anything. It is about explaining the evidence that supports everything. The truth is only where the preponderance of evidence may lead. Since all absolutes are unattainable, they are irrelevant. Since perfection is unachievable, it becomes unreasonable. Since truth itself is relative, it will never be universally acceptable. Eventually, the sheer weight of new scientific discoveries will always supersede ancient superstitions. As it has done in the past, and as it will do in the future. I'm afraid your belief tenacity gene, will eventually be removed from our collective gene pool. Eventually. Don

 

[DavidFirth]

I think that it is YOUR points that demonstrate a very sad attempt to save face, not faith. Science is certainly not about discovering the truth about anything. It is about explaining the evidence that supports everything. The truth is only where the preponderance of evidence may lead. Since all absolutes are unattainable, they are irrelevant. Since perfection is unachievable, it becomes unreasonable. Since truth itself is relative, it will never be universally acceptable. Eventually, the sheer weight of new scientific discoveries will always supersede ancient superstitions. As it has done in the past, and as it will do in the future. I'm afraid your belief tenacity gene, will eventually be removed from our collective gene pool. Eventually. Don

Genesis hasn't ever changed. What scientists tell you today will either change or be thrown out tomorrow. Listening to them while ignoring God is willful ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis hasn't ever changed. What scientists tell you today will either change or be thrown out tomorrow. Listening to them while ignoring God is willful ignorance.

What does a Christian call it when they try to place their sins upon others?

The problem with Genesis is that it hasn't changed. It was shown to be wrong over 200 years ago. The reason that science changes is because it has a self correcting mechanism. You should forget about your idea of "truth" and instead of concentrate on whether an idea is right or wrong and how wrong it is. Scientists realize that their ideas will not ever be 100% right. What they try to do is to have ideas that are as correct as possible and improve on the ideas of those in the past. If you look at the changes in the sciences you will see that the ideas of science tend to zero in on a target.

Meanwhile the Bible has no way to fix the obvious errors in it. Can you cure leprosy with dove's blood? The Bible says that you can. Will forcing mating animals to look at striped sticks affect the color of their offspring? The Bible says that it does. And of course we know that all of Genesis is wrong. It appears that we are not the ones that are willfully ignorant.

 

[Altfish]

How close are scientists to truth?

A lot closer than religion will ever get!

BUT scientists don't seek 'truth' they search for better understanding, better knowledge, better explanations of how things works

 

[Altfish]

Genesis hasn't ever changed. What scientists tell you today will either change or be thrown out tomorrow. Listening to them while ignoring God is willful ignorance.

What is wrong with change?
Are you still using Windows 1? Are you driving a Model T Ford? Travelling to work on a steam train?
We'd all be living in caves if it wasn't for change.
God hasn't invented a medicine, searched for a cure for cancer, stopped childhood illnesses. Science is ng to do all that.

Most scientists have learnt about god, thought about god and come to the conclusion that he /she is irrelevant and get on with life as if there is no god. It is not willful ignorance it is an informed decision.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Genesis hasn't ever changed. What scientists tell you today will either change or be thrown out tomorrow. Listening to them while ignoring God is willful ignorance.

The minute you use anything from the Bible as your inerrant source for truth, the argument has officially ended. When the sermonizing and Biblical quote-mining begin, the argument will be completely over. Do you really want me to go through all the untruths, inconsistencies, confusions, scientific impossibilities, that are made in Genesis alone? It is ignoring this truth that is the height of willful, or self-imposed ignorance. The Bible is a culturally inspired Bronze and Iron Age Book, written by man, compiled by man, edited by man, and contracted by man(Emperor Constantine), thousands of years ago. It is a Book of superstitions, myths, parables, epistles, narratives, analogies, proverbs, and prophecies, written in different languages to unify the different Religions within the Empire, and to maintain control over the peasants, children, sheep and goat herders.

Science is based on the accumulation of knowledge. The more knowledge we have about reality, the better we can understand and navigate our way through it. I'm sure you'll agree that our understanding of the world has change a lot since the time of Jesus. Science will always change to keep up with the incredible amount of data and information it receives. Interpreting this data, will sometimes produce changes in pre-existing ideas. Sometimes it confirms these ideas(Evolution), and sometimes it won't. This is the nature of science. The two most important tenants of science is falsifiability and practicality(application). Both tenants are completely absent in any Religious Belief. Religious Belief is static and subjective. Only its interpretations change to better fit the times. I listen to science because IT WORKS. Nothing in Religion can objectively do work or require energy. So, until you can provide any objective evidence regarding anything outside of our reality, I suggest that you continue to speak only to the choir and the pulpit. Because science has nothing to do with it. Don

 

[SkepticThinker]

And plenty have also refuted the entire theory, nothing wrong with that, it's how science works, progresses, I think we are in agreement

No one has refuted the entire theory. Hence the reason it's still the only scientific theory in town. If it had be refuted, as you want to claim for some reason, it wouldn't be.

We were talking about your odd use of terminology, in case you've forgotten. Not sure what this obviously false claim has to do with that.

 

[gnostic]

Science is based on the accumulation of knowledge. The more knowledge we have about reality, the better we can understand and navigate our way through it.

Yes, and science and scientific theories are all verified by observations (eg experiments and evidences).

The only ones that are not scientific theories, are any that of fall under the category of “theoretical science”.

Theoretical physics, like String Theory, Superstring Theory, Multiverse may call be called “theory” and may be logical or provable, they are not verifiable (or testable) through Scientific Method, so they are not actually “scientific theory”.

They are like hypothesis, they (theoretical physics) have the potential of becoming “scientific theory”, but only if they have empirical or verifiable evidences to back it up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

.... a mental construct that requires only "mental evidence" to sustain and confirm itself. Like all mental conditions it is totally subjective and self-sustaining. People choose to see and believe only what they want to see and believe. It is cognitive dissonance and the "Bandwagon Effect", that allows most people to ignore what is obvious and logical(the king not wearing clothes), and accept what is impossible without the need for objective evidence(other than dismissive rhetoric and excuses).

Like Darwinism?

There are those that believe that "Alf" is a real cosmic intergalactic traveller, and make shrines to praise him. The newest Religion now is Jediism, and is based completely on Star War characters. There are even those that believe that they will live forever, only if they live their entire lives in pious servitude. But, of course they must DIE first to collect. Does any rational person see a problem with that scenario? So, YES, any rational person would need a bit more information then just faith alone, before making this kind of commitment. Maybe the same kind of evidence that you try to misrepresent from Richard, like "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", to mean beyond ANY Doubt? Fortunately, science does not need your approval, or your faith. But don't worry, there will always be pseudo-scientific-fleas biting the back of the elephant in science. There will always be those seeking attention, personal relevance, recognition, and self-validation, based only on ignorance and closed-mindedness. Anything, but to actually put in the years of studies, work, and research necessary to break the shackles of ignorance, and reach intellectual enlightenment. Don

This complaint goes back a long way. The Big Bang was originally called 'pseudoscience' by atheists, particularly because it was put forward by an academic flea, a priest what is worse- a skeptic of atheism, biting at the back of the more academically fashionable elephant :- the static universe model- and all the years of work that went into trying to support it.

Same for crazy superstitious notions of hidden unpredictable forces, underlying and guiding the obviously 'immutable' laws of classical physics..

Sometimes the elephant is brought down by the flea, in fact.. science could never progress otherwise could it?


By the way, for the record, I think you are a perfectly intelligent well meaning person, fully capable of critical thought. But name calling does betray a large degree of passion supporting your belief, and that can be unhelpful in following the scientific method objectively

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Like Darwinism?




This complaint goes back a long way. The Big Bang was originally called 'pseudoscience' by atheists, particularly because it was put forward by an academic flea, a priest what is worse- a skeptic of atheism, biting at the back of the more academically fashionable elephant :- the static universe model- and all the years of work that went into trying to support it.

Same for crazy superstitious notions of hidden unpredictable forces, underlying and guiding the obviously 'immutable' laws of classical physics..

Sometimes the elephant is brought down by the flea, in fact.. science could never progress otherwise could it?


By the way, for the record, I think you are a perfectly intelligent well meaning person, fully capable of critical thought. But name calling does betray a large degree of passion supporting your belief, and that can be unhelpful in following the scientific method objectively

Making unfounded and baseless accusations, certainly demonstrates the passion of YOUR belief. Ignoring for the moment that I don't have any passion for my "non-belief"(faith), was there a specific issue that you objected to? Was it my reduction metaphor of religiosity? Was it the flea-elephant analogy, that you blatantly misrepresented and distorted? Was it the fact that I put my faith and trust in the knowledge and experience of educators, scientist, students, researchers, and the scientific method, and not in metaphysics, superstitions, and myths? If I have committed any personal name calling, please point them out so I can apologize. It was certainly not my intention.

Science is always evolving, so all retroactive complaints are irrelevant, self-serving, and only serve to support the strengths of how science is evolving. Remember science learns from its mistakes as well as its successes. It is the human condition to fear what it doesn't understand, and to destroy what it can't control. Therefore, the more we understand, the less we fear, and the more control we can attain.

Let me try a little hypothetical here. Maybe you'll get the connection, maybe you won't. Lets first assume that no Religious Beliefs exist. Donald Trump tells me that he will give me 5 Million dollars if I will support him, and vote him back into office for another four years. Being a true humanitarian, I gladly accept his offer, and tell him that I will support his philosophies his beliefs, and anything else he wants me to believe in. He then tells me that before I can collect the money, I must DIE first. I tell him that nobody is this stupid. How can I collect 5 Million dollars if I am dead? He tells me that he is a very rich business man and a wheeler-dealer, and that he knows people that know people that know people. He tells me that these people tell him that I will not really be dead at all. I will only be in a state of temporary hibernation. He tells me that I will only come out of hibernation, if I can believe hard enough that I will. He says, not only will I collect the 5 Million dollars, but that I will never be dead again. I told him that this is impossible, and what evidence does he have to support this scam. He tells me that I was demonstrating a lack of faith already. After the coffee, my dogs escorted him to the door. Now the question is, did I just loose 5 Million dollars? Or, did I gain the freedom of my own personal life? Don

 

[syo]

So as a believer in evolution I would like to hear the side of creationism or intelligent design. Why do you believe that they are true. I know that evolution hasnt been proven, but there is strong evidence to point in that direction. Let me know what you think.

creationism is the dna, evolution is the dna in practice.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Making unfounded and baseless accusations, certainly demonstrates the passion of YOUR belief. Ignoring for the moment that I don't have any passion for my "non-belief"(faith), was there a specific issue that you objected to? Was it my reduction metaphor of religiosity? Was it the flea-elephant analogy, that you blatantly misrepresented and distorted? Was it the fact that I put my faith and trust in the knowledge and experience of educators, scientist, students, researchers, and the scientific method, and not in metaphysics, superstitions, and myths? If I have committed any personal name calling, please point them out so I can apologize. It was certainly not my intention.

Science is always evolving, so all retroactive complaints are irrelevant, self-serving, and only serve to support the strengths of how science is evolving. Remember science learns from its mistakes as well as its successes. It is the human condition to fear what it doesn't understand, and to destroy what it can't control. Therefore, the more we understand, the less we fear, and the more control we can attain.

Let me try a little hypothetical here. Maybe you'll get the connection, maybe you won't. Lets first assume that no Religious Beliefs exist. Donald Trump tells me that he will give me 5 Million dollars if I will support him, and vote him back into office for another four years. Being a true humanitarian, I gladly accept his offer, and tell him that I will support his philosophies his beliefs, and anything else he wants me to believe in. He then tells me that before I can collect the money, I must DIE first. I tell him that nobody is this stupid. How can I collect 5 Million dollars if I am dead? He tells me that he is a very rich business man and a wheeler-dealer, and that he knows people that know people that know people. He tells me that these people tell him that I will not really be dead at all. I will only be in a state of temporary hibernation. He tells me that I will only come out of hibernation, if I can believe hard enough that I will. He says, not only will I collect the 5 Million dollars, but that I will never be dead again. I told him that this is impossible, and what evidence does he have to support this scam. He tells me that I was demonstrating a lack of faith already. After the coffee, my dogs escorted him to the door. Now the question is, did I just loose 5 Million dollars? Or, did I gain the freedom of my own personal life? Don

By a man's work shall you know him, President Trump has more practical demonstrable knowledge about creating wealth, than practically ever other president combined- so I'd trust him on this more than most... but there is a greater motive than money: Love- and it cannot be forced or bargained for, it has to be freely chosen, given, and that is the point of faith and salvation, it's only logical really..