h1

Science != Religion

January 12, 2008

This article is about religion and science (mostly evolution vs. creation). Read more if you like:

According to this Slashdot article, several Florida counties are passing resolutions against the teaching of evolution. As an atheist, I don’t go out of my way to attack religion, I neither go to Sunday Schools to berate small children nor do I yell obscenities during an Adhan. In fact, I have taken classes in Judaism and Islam to get a broader understanding of Abrahamic religions, even if I do find religion to be illogical specifically because I think people should know more about the world around them. However, as both a scientist and an atheist I find it appalling that people go out of their way to attack well known, highly researched scientific theories. The idea that Intelligent Design or Creation (ID/C) is a better model for how biological creatures change does not make sense to me in the least bit. Everything evolves. Language, Technology, Religions, and Ideas evolve. Look at a modern gun. At some point, we started with simple spears, from there we went to bow and arrows, cross bows, derringers, shotguns, and the modern firearm. You can draw a similar lineage through most things and to think that things like he modern human man can just start from nothing is not believable in the least to me. Most things evolve from a lesser being that is of a common lineage. The shotgun and the sniper rifle share the same lineage and have evolved from a “lesser” weapon. To argue that this doesn’t happen to biological creatures but it does happen to human inventions is not even wrong. Its beyond wrong.

I wonder if it is worth the religious fanaticism to deprive children of knowledge according to this and this article. How can the boards sit there and listen to evidence that is filled with logical fallacies and condone teaching these ideas. It seems that apparently the (ID/C) proponents want to keep the idea of “ignorance is bliss” going in Florida. I heard a great quote on the television the other day: “Everything in the universe can be explained…eventually” and I find it to apply here.

Keep your theology off my biology!

Advertisements

29 comments

  1. And that’s why a centralized education system would be better in the US.


  2. Let me tell you evolution cannot be without creation. Take an example. If robots say they r evolved not created.


  3. @ matcha

    I believe the point here is the mechanism of creation, not the bashing on the term ‘creation’ which can be used in many different context.


  4. @ matcha.
    How so? Nothing is ever really “created”. We don’t really create robots, we really only change the metal, silicone, and digital circuits etc into a robot. The idea that we created it doesn’t apply, we only changed substances from a lower state to a more intelligent one. See the wikipedia article.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

    @ Azrael
    I’m generally a fan of decentralized systems, but do you mean more federal oversight of state run education?


  5. No knowledge or research will make anyone understand the work of God. Those are only for manipulations.

    Its the heart which we need to open up to God. So open up your heart and ask the same question to Jesus. By faith he will answer you.


  6. Everything evolves. Language, Technology, Religions, and Ideas evolve. This one of the big misconceptions about ID. Of course ID people believe that things like language, technology, ideas and even religions change over time. Some people call this evolution, but it’s not the molecule-to-man evolution that ID people deny. Things change over time, but downwards. For example, it is a well known fact that languages get less complex over time, and they divide. That’s what we’re seeing with species. Not the kind of evolution that Darwin requires, just the kind that divides species into other species, the kind that makes species lose genetic information.
    Look at a modern gun. At some point, we started with simple spears, from there we went to bow and arrows, cross bows, derringers, shotguns, and the modern firearm. You can draw a similar lineage through most things and to think that things like he modern human man can just start from nothing is not believable in the least to me.
    ID makes sense. Look at the modern gun. At some point, an intelligent designer started with simple spears, from there, intelligent designers made bow and arrows, cross bows, derringers, shotguns and the modern firearm. To think that things like the modern human man can just start from nothing, as the atheist evolution framework requires, is just unbelievable to me. However, the idea that different kinds of animals were created, and then began to change and divide over time makes much more sense.
    Here’s what ID people really think (minus all the Christianity stuff): http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/. Note especially the contrasting the models section.
    Most things evolve from a lesser being that is of a common lineage. The shotgun and the sniper rifle share the same lineage and have evolved from a “lesser” weapon.Not naturally, thanks to chance. The example you gave required an intelligent designer.
    To argue that this doesn’t happen to biological creatures but it does happen to human inventions is not even wrong. Its beyond wrong.It’s logical. Human inventions have intelligent designers! I’d be interested to hear your definition of wrong, since you’re an atheist.
    I wonder if it is worth the religious fanaticism to deprive children of knowledge according to this and this article. How can the boards sit there and listen to evidence that is filled with logical fallacies and condone teaching these ideas. It seems that apparently the (ID/C) proponents want to keep the idea of “ignorance is bliss” going in Florida. I heard a great quote on the television the other day: “Everything in the universe can be explained…eventually” and I find it to apply here.Actually, ID people want others to know the whole truth about the theory of Darwinist evolution, the arguments for and against, in addition to alternative theories.
    Keep your theology off my biology!But blind belief that chance and natural forces can design things, in atheistic framework, is alright? Besides, ID doesn’t present any theology.
    I object to calling resolutions as antievolution. All they’re saying is: ’We’re opposed to teaching evolution as a fact.’ Plenty of evolutionists are opposed to teaching evolution as a fact. The theory of evolution still has too many unaswered questions like the origin of life.


  7. Great, the blog didn’t accept my quote tags. My comment above must look like nonsense now.


  8. Of course, I don’t think religion should prevent us from learning something, but on the other hand: Darwin’s evolutionary theory hasn’t been proved, and still misses out on a few points.
    However, this does not mean it should not be taught: it means that we should also be presented with alternative theories and be made to clearly understand that Darwin’s theory isn’t all-encompassing.


  9. Vincent, I agree, evolution is just a theory and we should teach alternatives. You also must agree that the sun-centered solar system is only theory and has not been proved, therefore we should teach the alternative theory that the earth is the center of the solar system and that the sun and planets revolve around it (possibly on crystal spheres, but this is unknown to modern science).

    Probably should teach Numerology in Math, Astrology in Science, Spontaneous generation in Biology, JFK conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial in History.

    I hope you’ll help out my effort to get IG taught in schools as well:
    http://craptaculus.com/News/science/IG_theory.shtml


  10. @JoeJoe:
    There is a difference between theories and scientific facts. I’m all for darwinism but it’s definitely less proven than the idea of our solar system. Hell, we can see the solar system with our own eyes and even more so can astronauts.

    Eveolution theory is different, we definitely know that higher creatures evolved from lower creatures, through mutation, we can easily prove that with the existance of modern cows and pigs that couldn’t survive without human help. However there are still huge unknowns which make evolution a theory.
    For example, we do not know for sure how the environment might influence the genes, it’s entirely possible that environmental changes might change the dna beyond pure randomness.
    In the same way for example the metamorphosis of a frog activates specific genes when a specific hormon (which by chance is the same that introduces puberty in humans, explain that with darwinism) is activated, environmental changes might change the genes in unknown ways.
    All in all, I’m pretty sure darwinism is still incomplete, however incomplete and wrong are completly different things. For example newtonian physics was incomplete when looking at very high speeds but it’s still not wrong. And there is absolutely no point in not teaching something that is incomplee, after all we also know that quantum mechanics and relativism contradict in some points, and still it’s abolutely usefull to teach both.
    That said, I think though we should definitely teach darwinism, we shouldn’t think this theory to be set in stone, just like animals science is also evolving, and there are probably many things left to find out about the mechanisms of evolution.


  11. @anonymous commenter

    Things change over time, but downwards.
    This is the idea that is described by Daniel Dennet as the “trickle down idea of goodness”. It presumes that there is a higher level of a good design which goes down and down. This brings the question: what brought the initial higher goodness. It gets you into a logical fallacy. THIS is EXACTLY the opposite the idea of Darwain, that things evolve over time from lower beings. Yes things do divide because they share a common lineage and because of natural selection some die of ad some survive.
    The modern gun argument is another argument that “you can’t build a house without a builder.” We didn’t always have houses, the builder is a byproduct of modern homes. Spears are a byproduct of man, but what is man a byproduct of? Evolution (which doesn’t require it to be in an atheistic framework btw)

    ID is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to show the theory to be true, not is it falsifiable or have been proven experimentally.

    Evolution is not a fact. Its a theory but like Gravity (look at modern physics, we still haven’t figured out gravity completely) its a great theory that works and which allows us to do a multitude of things like put a man on the moon. The argument that it is an incomplete theory and shouldn’t be taught is also wrong in a scientific context. Science works best when people know current models and improve on them.

    @ Vincent:
    Gravity hasn’t been proven yet but you believe in that don’t you? Again, the incomplete theory argument is insufficient because science progresses on theory (see above). I would be all for teaching an alternative theory if a valid one presented itself in a SCIENTIFIC context which is different than the manner used in modern English.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

    @ niklas
    You are absolutely correct, there is no grand unifying theory in physics. That doesn’t mean we can’t use Newtonian (Classical) physics to engineer houses because the theory works. Maybe I’m missing your argument, you seem to be on my side.


  12. @niklas:
    “In the same way for example the metamorphosis of a frog activates specific genes when a specific hormon[sic] (which by chance is the same that introduces puberty in humans, explain that with darwinism) is activated,…”

    This exactly proves Darwinism. The gene is obviously the gene that evolved in a common ancestor to probably all vertebrates, the one gene that allowed the creatures to survive above all others. You know, scientists have recreated conditions of proto-earth, and have observed, through natural and random processes, that shperoids will form in water and spontaneously create internal workings which resembly the most basic viruses and eubacteria.

    Besides, any flaw you try to find in Darwinism and Evolution as a whole PROVES that it is science, as it can be questioned, can possibly be proven false. reationism/Intelligent Design, while it may be true (there is no way of knowing), is NOT science in any matter whatsoever, because it cannot be scrutinized by the scientific method. You cannot question its validity, it is not based on scientific observation, and it cannot be proven wrong. This is why it cannot be taught in science classes. It belongs in social studies classes, or religion classes. It has no place in state run education, which must be kept separate from religious influence.


  13. > we can easily prove that with the existance of modern cows
    > and pigs that couldn’t survive without human help.

    Modern domestic cows and especially pigs can survive fine without humans.

    > For example, we do not know for sure how the environment
    > might influence the genes,

    We don’t necessarily know *all* the way genes might be influenced, but we know a lot of ways.

    > it’s entirely possible that environmental changes might
    > change the dna beyond pure randomness.

    This seems to be a very confused thought. Mutations are random; natural selection, which determines what mutations are passed on, is never random.

    > Darwinism
    It is inaccurate to call the modern theory of evolution Darwinism. Other than “the (modern) theory of evolution” the most correct term would be “Modern Synthesis”. The Modern Synthesis still has Darwin’s central ideas at it’s core, but much of the rest is very different.

    As for how certain evolution is, it is just a little bit less nailed down than the solar-centric solar system. We know evolution occurs, we can observe it in the lab and in nature. We know that heredity is controlled by the genes plus some epigenetic material. We know most (maybe all) categories of causes of mutation (radiation, transcription errors, etc.). We know that there are several sets of selective pressures: natural selection, sexual selection, etc. There maybe some gaps in our knowledge, and there is always lots more to learn in the fine details, but all in all, the theory is very solid.


  14. @all
    Don’t know why some seem to think I’m against evolution, I’m absolutely not. The point I want to make is that there must remain uncertainties, that’s what’s scientific about evolution theory, it itself can evolve the more facts we discover.
    @Kelly:
    >> it’s entirely possible that environmental changes might
    >> change the dna beyond pure randomness.

    >This seems to be a very confused thought. Mutations are >random; natural selection, which determines what mutations >are passed on, is never random.

    There are many other ways environmental conditions could change the genes beyond natural selection, and that is not this crazy mystic thing called god I’m referring to. The thing is we can’t just say it’s natural selection and that’s about it because ruling other ways out would be absolutely counter scientific. Let me give some examples in which ways genes could be changed beyond natural selection:
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation
    who guarantees us, that there is no mechanism which measures how beneficial the genetic code is and helps to transfer it to other bacteria.
    2. We don’t know very much about the mechanisms by which females find their partners, it’s entirely possible and some evidence points in this direction, that through the use of pheromons there is some checking of the genes, evolution is not primarily about the survival of the fittest but about the survival of the most propagating, that is most sex-having. genes.
    3. We also don’t know wether the picking of the chromosome during meiose or wether a sperm reaches it’s host cell is entirely random, it might very well have filters in place.

    Though what I’m pointing out is essentially going into details with “We know that there are several sets of selective pressures: natural selection, sexual selection, etc.”
    I do think that in science sometimes the details contain the most important information.

    As a sidenote, I’m all for teaching the theory that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Then we should of course also teach that global warming is created by the shortage of pirates we have today, I mean unlike ID there is statistical prove of it.


  15. @niklas, there is proof that environment does affect the expression of proteins (DNA), and therefore environment DOES change the organism, proving evolution.

    please see the

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


  16. Just a thought here. Your example:
    “Look at a modern gun. At some point, we started with simple spears, from there we went to bow and arrows, cross bows, derringers, shotguns, and the modern firearm. You can draw a similar lineage through most things and to think that things like he modern human man can just start from nothing is not believable in the least to me. Most things evolve from a lesser being that is of a common lineage. The shotgun and the sniper rifle share the same lineage and have evolved from a “lesser” weapon. To argue that this doesn’t happen to biological creatures but it does happen to human inventions is not even wrong. Its beyond wrong.”

    I don’t think this would be a good example for the case against ID since you do have an intelligent behind your example (weapons, guns, spears, etc.) and since you believe there is no intelligent being behind biology.. I fail to see your argument in this case.

    I think there are valid points on both sides of the fence.

    Thank you.


  17. @ Orrin

    That is an example of how evolution occurs. It happens in all things: religion, language, technology, etc. There are plenty of weapons that are made but they are not adaptable to modern warfare and naturally selected out of the rotation (trebuchet). That is just an example, just because someone finds better uses for them doesn’t mean its intelligent design. Again, that means there is a thing of higher intelligence designing the weapons, then humans must be intelligently designed by someone (call it a Theos for arguments sake). Then the Theos must be intelligently designed as well. And that designer designed and so on…

    Weapons are a by-product of humans. I hope my response clears things up.


  18. I’m still a little confused by the statement but that is ok. I was just thinking about it and thought that since all of these man-made things showed an evolution of some sort that would mean that the idea of a biological evolution with a theos behind it would seem to fit together.

    I’m not really a theologian or anyone really schooled in religious thought so I may be missing the mark here. 🙂


  19. Your analogy is wrong because, as Orrin says, there is an intelligence behind the design of the gun. It doesn’t evolve, it is being redesigned.
    Furthermore, the fact that evolution happens in one area is in no way a proof that it happens in another. Your whole post doesn’t mention any good reason why someone couldn’t believe in ID.

    Secondly, although science would certainly investigate evolution in our time, it is un-scientific to say that no higher being could have been involved when life came to be or when species developped. A higher being can not be a subject of reproducable, systematic experiments and is thus not a subject of science.
    Many people say therefore that they assume that life evolved in a way that is subject of science, but that is not a scientific statement. It is a filosofical choice.


  20. @ Orrin
    Perhaps the example is misleading. I used the firearm example to show things evolve, how they evolve is not an issue in this case it is driven by humans but not in every case (in bacteria, in chickens etc). I will grant that the example could be better so here it is: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html
    Birds evolving (no human intervention)

    @ Walther
    True. Evolution in one field doesn’t prove it in another. However, if one takes a classical look at education, one can find some trends transcend fields. For example, one may use calculus to analysis the economy or physics to do accounting. In fact, this is one reason I feel attending a liberal arts college is a good idea.

    > Your whole post doesn’t mention any good reason why someone couldn’t believe in ID.
    I don’t care if people CAN believe, i think they SHOULDN’T because its not a valid scientific theory. It is up to people that believe ID is a valid scientific theory. This is a shift of the burden of proof, its a logical fallacy.

    It is true that a “higher being can not be a subject of reproducable, systematic experiments and is thus not a subject of science.” but it this is also a logical fallacy. It is more burdensome to say we have our science AND a higher being exists. We can just have our science (see Occam’s razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor). We can always say a higher being was present but again it is not our burden to prove so. It is your burden.


  21. Ya’ll should read “Climbing Mount Improbable”, and/or “The Blind Watchmaker”. Dawkins explains this all very well in both books.

    Also, @martha. This is why most scientist disregard you. The hand-waving Jesus crap. The statement you said doesn’t help the conversation at all.


  22. I can never understand how Christian people can argue that evolution doesn’t happen in fact.

    Even if you believe their creation story is literal how do you get to a world with genetically different (if only slightly) races of humans without evolution?

    In fact if you are such a Christian believing the story and young earth timeline then evolution must not only happen, it must happen a lot faster than is typically understood.


  23. @Paul: yes, evolution as defined as change over time does happen at lot faster than evolutionists would like you to believe, include so-called ‘races’ which are only skin deep. See ‘where do human races come from?’ on this creationnist site: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3031/
    @Freddy: of course ID people believe that things evolve, in the sense that they change over time. You were attacking a straw man. Change over time is accepted by 99% of scientists and Americans.
    “I don’t care if people CAN believe, i think they SHOULDN’T because its not a valid scientific theory. It is up to people that believe ID is a valid scientific theory. This is a shift of the burden of proof, its a logical fallacy.” According to you. But according to a lot of scientists, (a lot, not one or two supporting the spaghetti monster theory/religion/whatever), it is a valid scientific theory. Furthermore, the USA is a democracy, therefore, if more than 50% want both theories to be considered in school, they should.
    Since I’ve been posting one or two links, I thought it was only fair that I read yours. It’s interesting that that article admits to so much doubt about the evolution theory for birds: “Few subjects in evolutionary theory have posed such intriguing puzzles for so long as the origin of birds”, “Archaeopteryx leaves many questions unanswered.” “a few scientists are still unconvinced.” And it didn’t show how birds evolved, I mean, I was expecting: fossil evidence of a lizard, fossil evidence of a lizard plus bits of wings, fossil evidence of a lizard plus bits of wings plus a bit of a beak…. until we arrive to a bird. Only one intermediary form was shown.
    Do you understand the difference between operational science, and origins science? Operational science, like say, the way gravity works, is subject to the scientific methods: repeatable, testable experiments. Origins science (Darwinist evolution, big bang, ID) is not subject to the scientific method. How can one ever repeat Darwinist evolution, since it was supposed to have taken millions of years?
    The gun is again a bad example. You can see what you call evolution in guns, so would you claim that these guns naturally came about through chance and gradual change thanks to no intelligence? No. And yet, you claim you can do this with nature.
    “That is an example of how evolution occurs. It happens in all things: religion, language, technology, etc. There are plenty of weapons that are made but they are not adaptable to modern warfare and naturally selected out of the rotation (trebuchet).” No, this is not how Darwinist evolution occurs. The evolution you mentioned (change over time, influenced by natural and sexual selection), is not the evolution that ID people deny. ID people affirm change over time (‘evolution’), and natural selection. Darwinist evolution require a start from nothing, gradual change that adds information and complexity over time due only to chance (as in, no intelligent purpose). The evolution you mentioned doesn’t require a start from nothing, nor an absence of intelligent purpose. In fact, the evolution you mentioned has a history of intelligent purpose and intelligent designers.

    “This is the idea that is described by Daniel Dennet as the “trickle down idea of goodness”. It presumes that there is a higher level of a good design which goes down and down. This brings the question: what brought the initial higher goodness. It gets you into a logical fallacy. THIS is EXACTLY the opposite the idea of Darwin, that things evolve over time from lower beings. Yes things do divide because they share a common lineage and because of natural selection some die of ad some survive.”Glad you’re finally seem to get it. All the evidence we’ve ever seen as human beings has been of downwards change. Evolutionists are still looking for upwards change that will convince fellow evolutionists, let alone ID people.
    “The modern gun argument is another argument that “you can’t build a house without a builder.” We didn’t always have houses, the builder is a byproduct of modern homes. Spears are a byproduct of man, but what is man a byproduct of? Evolution (which doesn’t require it to be in an atheistic framework btw)”” yes it does, in a way, it requires one to ignore the supernatural, as if it didn’t exist. Creationists would say man is a byproduct of Adam. It fits the evidence better than Darwinist evolution.

    “ID is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to show the theory to be true, not is it falsifiable or have been proven experimentally.”You could say the same about Darwinist evolution. It’s possible that all the missing links actually do exist, but since it’s impossible to prove a negative, it’s impossible to disprove Darwinist evolution. Also, it’s impossible to improve experimentally, since Darwinist evolution takes a very, very long time.

    “Evolution is not a fact. Its a theory but like Gravity (look at modern physics, we still haven’t figured out gravity completely) its a great theory that works and which allows us to do a multitude of things like put a man on the moon. The argument that it is an incomplete theory and shouldn’t be taught is also wrong in a scientific context. Science works best when people know current models and improve on them.” I quote from arguments creationists should not use:
    ‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. (end quote)
    Darwinist evolution theory, since it’s not operational science but origins science, doesn’t do things like put men on the moon. The theory of gravity, is though.


  24. I think there are maybe there are a couple faulty arguments going here.

    1) “We see things evolve all the time, therefore ID/creationism must be false.”

    Well, I don’t know of an ID proponent that would say that “things” don’t evolve in some sense if you mean the general definition of “gradual change”. But to then say that it proves that all species share a common ancestor and have arisen from biological evolutionary processes is quite the extrapolation. Many ID/creationist proponents agree with observations that species often change over time and even sometimes new species are formed. So this would seem to me to be a strawman argument.

    2) “ID is not science and cannot be proven and evolution is and can.”

    I see a lot of arguments that claim that ID is not science, usually claiming because it is not falsifiable. However, ID scientists do make falsifiable claims and show research-based data so I’m not sure where that comes from. Any origins research is going to suffer from some inability to falsify since, by definition, we can’t replicate the experiment and can only infer from the “remains”. The only methodological difference I see between ID and “normative” evolutionary science would be the allowance of something outside the natural world that could act as a causal agent. If you want to argue that that methodology is incorrect, then fine, but I don’t see how the claim can be made that ID is any less falsifiable than any other scientific assertion.

    Overall, when it comes to what should be taught in schools, I don’t think it hurts to have an open discussion about the subject. Though I personally think that ID is probably the more “correct” explanation, the scientist in me feels the current scientific “consensus” should also be taught. There’s nothing wrong with saying “this is the current understanding but it’s not the only explanation out there”.

    Anyway, just some thoughts.


  25. @commenter
    >> According to you. But according to a lot of scientists, (a >> lot, not one or two supporting the spaghetti monster
    >> theory/religion/whatever), it is a valid scientific theory.

    Which ones?

    >> Furthermore, the USA is a democracy, therefore, if more
    >> than 50% want both theories to be considered in school,
    >> they should.

    False argument. This is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

    >> And it didn’t show how birds evolved, I mean, I was
    >> expecting: fossil evidence of a lizard, fossil evidence of
    >> a lizard plus bits of wings, fossil evidence of a lizard
    >> plus bits of wings plus a bit of a beak…. until we arrive >> to a bird. Only one intermediary form was shown.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds#Huxley.2C_Archaeopteryx_and_early_research
    Birds have very lightweight bones which are adapted to flying. Due to the nature of their bones, the bones decompose rapidly after they die and these fossils are hard to find. Fossilization is unlikely as it is and bird fossils are hard to find.

    >> Origins science (Darwinist evolution, big bang, ID) is not >> subject to the scientific method. How can one ever repeat >> Darwinist evolution, since it was supposed to have taken
    >> millions of years?
    No it happens every day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation
    I have a question for you Commentor: Have you ever had a flu? Do you know why there are no real treatments for the flu? its because the virus mutates so rapidly that its structure changes. Have you ever heard of HIV?
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mrsa/DS00735
    The product of evolution
    Have you ever used slang? People don’t all sit down and make decisions on how to use language because it is organic and evolves rapidly.

    >> Glad you’re finally seem to get it. All the evidence we’ve >> ever seen as human beings has been of downwards change.
    >> Evolutionists are still looking for upwards change that
    >> will convince fellow evolutionists, let alone ID people.

    What exactly are you arguing here? It leaves me confused, not because I can’t grasp your argument but because I don’t know what the argument is.

    >> Evolution (which doesn’t require it to be in an atheistic >> framework btw)”” yes it does, in a way, it requires one to >> ignore the supernatural, as if it didn’t exist.
    >> Creationists would say man is a byproduct of Adam. It fits >> the evidence better than Darwinist evolution.

    Creationist would say that but that doesn’t make it correct. How does creation fit the evidence better? The burden of proof is on you. Of course we reject the supernatural (to quote you) “as if it didn’t exist. Do you actually think the supernatural exists? Please make your arguments here so I can show you how illogical they are.

    >> What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution >> is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted
    >> dogmatically.’

    I’m not promoting evolution dogmatically. I am defending it from attacks from censorship, illogical arguments and dogmatic religious people who argue against it.


  26. Science is nothing but exploring Gods creation

    Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize


  27. @ matcha
    The Templeton Prize is given to people go along with the conventions of religion. Its was called the “Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion” until seven years ago where it was renamed “Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities”. I don’t see how this can be touted as evidence of anything other than a group that is dedicated to people contributing to spirituality, which is different than the Nobel Prize (for example, Einstein and the photoelectric effect).

    Further, science is about learning through a scientific method.

    I noticed that you said “Gods creation”. I’m not sure if you mean God (a Theos of sorts) or a multitude of Gods. Seems like creating a universe would have to result in the work of many many Gods.


  28. Sorry for the typo.
    Science is nothing but exploring God’s creation


  29. Have a look at this video – Darwin on Trial

    http://www.thierrypaulmier.com/index.php?view=article&catid=49%3Avideo-gellery&id=98%3Adarwin-on-trial&option=com_content&Itemid=30



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: