Creation vs. Evolution

[Sage]

I’ll say it again: it’s impossible for a man and woman to be genetically identical. If the supposed Eve were genetically identical to the supposed Adam, she would have had a penis. Period.

 

[Joey D]

I’ll say it again: it’s impossible for a man and woman to be genetically identical. If the supposed Eve were genetically identical to the supposed Adam, she would have had a penis. Period.

And the same chromosomes.

 

[Sage]

Well, yes, that’s the point. Sex chromosomes presuppose genitals.

 

[frestkd]

I’ll say it again: it’s impossible for a man and woman to be genetically identical. If the supposed Eve were genetically identical to the supposed Adam, she would have had a penis. Period.

And the same chromosomes.

Well, yes, that’s the point. Sex chromosomes presuppose genitals.

If we take the Bible literally as how God made humans when he made Eve the woman from Adam the man's half of a rib cage. That being said in turns is implying that Adam and Eve are the same person, but one is a man and the other is a woman. Anyway in most Christians, and Jews believe when a man and a woman get married they become one human being with both genitals.

 

[Kylehnat]

I've never heard that before...from anyone.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Agreed, Kyle... that's about the most over-literalized viewpoint on that I've ever seen... every Christian I've ever talked to (which is a LOT - I was raised in one of those crazed Southern Baptist megachurches) views marriage as the union of the souls, not the union of the bodies, and certainly not the genitals.

There MAY be extremely orthodox sects of Catholocism that still believe in a union like you describe frestkd, in the same way that they believe that the crackers and grape juice actually PHYSICALLY turn into the body and blood of Christ... but they'd be few, far-between, and likely ill-respected even among their denominational brethren.

 

[Famine]

I’ll say it again: it’s impossible for a man and woman to be genetically identical. If the supposed Eve were genetically identical to the supposed Adam, she would have had a penis. Period.

No period...

 

[the Interceptor]

I think what we can relate to in technical terms is that God made Eve from Adams rip cage while, obviously, altering the genes for her to be a woman. However, every offspring would be a product of incest, as they would be related ... technically.

I think this is one of the reasons why religion and science don't go that well together.

 

[Sureboss]

If we take the Bible literally as how God made humans when he made Eve the woman from Adam the man's half of a rib cage. That being said in turns is implying that Adam and Eve are the same person, but one is a man and the other is a woman. Anyway in most Christians, and Jews believe when a man and a woman get married they become one human being with both genitals.

I'm definitely not getting married if I grow one of them.

 

[Famine]

Think of the boobies!

 

[Sureboss]

Think of the grumpiness! *runs*

 

[FoolKiller]

If we take the Bible literally as how God made humans when he made Eve the woman from Adam the man's half of a rib cage. That being said in turns is implying that Adam and Eve are the same person, but one is a man and the other is a woman. Anyway in most Christians, and Jews believe when a man and a woman get married they become one human being with both genitals.

Odd, I have heard two people, one spirit, etc. But not that.

There MAY be extremely orthodox sects of Catholocism that still believe in a union like you describe frestkd, in the same way that they believe that the crackers and grape juice actually PHYSICALLY turn into the body and blood of Christ... but they'd be few, far-between, and likely ill-respected even among their denominational brethren.

I knew a guy like that in college. He also accused pretty girls of being to blame for tempting him to want to be unfaithful to his girlfriend.

I think this is one of the reasons why religion literalists and science don't go that well together.

Fixed that for you.

I'm definitely not getting married if I grow one of them.

Don't worry, it just feels a lot like she has you by the genitals and controls everything you do. You can't see any difference though.

 

[wfooshee]

No period...

 

[Stevisiov]

Think of the runs

Don't be disgusting

Mis-quoting FTW.

 

[Earth]

Ben Stein's new movie: Expelled: No Intelligence allowed

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

7 minute trailer




The major goal of this movie doesn't appear to be proving creation or disproving evolution.

Rather, it's goal seems to be the fight for open thinking in science and the classroom.

"Physcists are the only scientists who can mention God and not blush."

- Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York

Dr. Kaku is anything but a creationist. His god and Einstein's god is the god of order and harmony we see in nature and the universe, not the God of Abraham. He made that quite clear.

But the point I'm trying to make is why should any scientist or physicist blush when mentioning God? Is there so much pressure in today's schools and education system to hush up any talk of God that doing so would result in one blushing?

Apparently God, an all powerful being, is not worthy to be on the list of possible reasons for the creation of life on Earth. That must be some list. What does the list include?

- Chance
- Mutations
- Space Aliens

All 3 are considered by most scientists today to be the most plausible reasons for the birth of life here on earth. God is not a plausible reason. Why?

Some scientists may think that God is the science of men thousands of years ago, a being created in their minds to explain the world around them and how it came into existance. God is not science of today, but science of primitive men, they may conclude. So therefore God is not a possible explanation for the creation of life on this planet or the universe.

So is there any reason to include God on the list of possible reasons for the creation of the universe and life with chance, mutation, and space aliens?

Dr. Michio Kaku says that when he is thinking about a really tough problem he trys to put himself in the shoes of God, and tries to think the way God would think. However the God he is talking about is not a being, but rather nothing more than the order and harmony we see in the universe.

Dr. Kaku says in the beginning there was nothing, and nothing is uncertain, so it exploded and created the physical universe. Dr. Stephen Hawking shares this view. Nothing being responsible for the instant of the creation of the universe is an acceptable theory, but God isn't? Can't He even be a theory? No, He can't. Even mentioning such a thing will get you 'expelled' as Ben Stein would put it.

Dr. Kaku is baffled as to why the human species, despite being nothing but a form of life on a small planet in no important place in the universe has the brain power to understand the awesome universe and it's mysteries despite the fact a monkey can't solve a simple math problem. He is thankful for this, but of course does not attribute any of his intelligence to God, but rather to chance, mutations, and or survival of the fittest.

Scientists talk about creation and life being designed, yet creation and design cannot be attributed to a God. It cannot even be mentioned as a theory.

Taken From Stephen Hawking's Universe

"For 15 billion years, expansion has run it's course in perfect measure. What fluke in physical law has managed to strike this uncanny balance?"

Andre Linday discusses the problem

"When I was still a kid, I asked myself a question, how could it happen that in different parts of the universe expansion started simultaneously. Who gave the signal? How can I understand it?

And then I thought when I grow older I will read the books that were written by professors and I would find out the answer."

I grew older and found out people did not know the question existed."

Inflation theory was proposed to try and solve the problem, but it soon fell to the wayside.

I'm not saying scientists will never find a way to explain the perfect expansion of the universe or other questions that elude them. However, like everything they figure out about the universe, or earth or even us, they will find out it is orderly, complex and the chances of something happening like that at random are highly unlikely without someone controlling and guiding it all. But despite the enormous odds vs the likely hood of the universe forming in all its glory by fluke accident or even a cell forming by accident most scientists today will defend to the death it is possible and did happen, and they will also defend to the death against your right to say God did it or even propose God as a theory.

They may say the have the right to. Afterall some may believe God is the science of primitive men, not modern scientific thinkers.

Christianity is one of the world's largest religions. It had it's origins with Judaism. While many claim Judaism borrowed it's beliefs from religions around them today all the religions Judaism supposedly borrowed from are gone. However Christianity and Judaism remain and show zero signs of leaving.

Today if you believe in God and have a religion you most likely Christain or Muslim. These religions have similiar beliefs and origins.

If I remember correctly Muslims believe in the Garden of Eden and of course the Jews do. Therefore they all believe in the same creation account, Genesis. Therefore if there is a God, then the Genesis account must be his word. Why didn't the basic thoughts of Babylon's religions come to world domination like the basics of Judaism? If Judaism was borrowing from Babylon and other religions, why would the beliefs of Judaism spread worldwide and not the beliefs of the greater religion, the one they had to borrow from, Babylon and it's gods, Marduk among others?

If the God of Abraham is indeed a God created in their minds to explain the living world, then they surely would have no credible idea about how the world was created or how it works, right?

First why do billions of people go to a church, synagogue, mosque every week? Do they go on the basis that if they don't they will be burned in a fiery hell? Some may do, but most don't. Humans have a spiritual need. Even most atheists accept that. Our lives feel empty at times and going to a church feels that need. Is this spiritual need a primitive fear of the unknown or hopelessness in such a dark world? Hardly. Even the happiest people attend religious meetings every week. However even for atheists the idea that there is no-one out there is troubling. Dr. Michio Kaku says the idea of there not being space aliens out there is frightening to him, because that would mean he would be all alone. Dr. Michio Kaku speaks about great technology these space aliens could give us. The basic fact is we humans don't want to be alone in the universe. We want someone out there who is more powerful then us who can help us, whether it be God or space aliens. Every human has that natural feeling because there is someone out there greater then us who can help us.

Now how scientifically sound is Genesis?

Is it the only creation account to speak of the creation of the universe, stars, and the earth and by a single all powerful being, not mythical gods competing for power? Yes.

Does Genesis say God first created life in the seas? Yes. Does science agree life first arose in the seas? Yes.

Did Moses happen to write that by chance? How lucky of a guess that must have been!

Is the rest of the creation account concerning the order of appearance of life on earth in harmony with what science has found? Yes.

Men were the last to appear in Genesis and science accepts this.

Genesis is scientifically sound, yet some may never accept this. Some may never get over the barrier that yes, an all powerful God, a being strong enough to create the universe using his energy, inspired men to write Genesis and the entire Bible and has in the past interfered with human affairs and will do so again in the future.

There is proof of God, it's just whether or not you will accept it or not. I can just look at my hand see proof of God. However some can look at their beautiful darling child, enjoy a delicious meal, enjoy a breathtaking sunset and attribute it all to chance.

Someone can show you evidence of a UFO all day long but if you are hardened against the idea that there just might be you will never believe, no matter what anyone tells you or shows you.

I could have gone much deeper and longer into this discussion but I've come to realize you're never going to reach someone over an internet message board. I'd just thought I'd share some of my thoughts that I've been having recently.

 

[Famine]

Dr. Kaku is anything but a creationist. His god and Einstein's god is the god of order and harmony we see in nature and the universe, not the God of Abraham. He made that quite clear.

[...]

Apparently God, an all powerful being, is not worthy to be on the list of possible reasons for the creation of life on Earth. That must be some list. What does the list include?

- Chance
- Mutations
- Space Aliens

All 3 are considered by most scientists today to be the most plausible reasons for the birth of life here on earth. God is not a plausible reason. Why?

God is included in the last one. If you define "God" as "entity of greater intelligence and power than humanity".

Also, the first two are the same.

Men were the last to appear in Genesis and science accepts this.

Misrepresentation. Men were not the last to appear. Semantically, all life currently on Earth is the last to appear on its particular branch. Accurately, new species have arisen since mankind (perhaps because of mankind) did.

Genesis is scientifically sound.

This has been deconstructed countless times, including in this thread.

Genesis is as scientifically sound as Clifford the Big Red Dog.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

he said all that and that was the best reply you could come up with? A semantic or two and a half-statement?
Look past the time differences, as obviously the measurment of time was different, we can see this when men don't live 900+ years, and then where is the scientific inaccuracy?
The mere mention of the possibility of a God makes you tremble, why I do not know, and certainly don't expact to find out.

 

[Famine]

he said all that and that was the best reply you could come up with? A semantic or two and a half-statement?

Now read it with a logical hat on.

Science accepts the possibility of more advanced beings - it practically guarantees it. The problem isn't science misunderstanding religion, it's religionistas misrepresenting science - as per the second part Earth posted about science agreeing that man is the last species to arise (which is wholly untrue). For some reason it's thought that no-one will notice if you make things up and say "science says this" in order to back up a story.

Look past the time differences, as obviously the measurment of time was different, we can see this when men don't live 900+ years, and then where is the scientific inaccuracy?

I agree - if you entirely disregard whole principles like time (amongst which you include logic and rationality), then Genesis could be accurate.

Sadly, these are luxuries which aren't afforded to us. And I wasn't just referring to the measurement of time.

The creation myth as detailed in Genesis is just that - a myth. There's a few thousand posts in this thread to read over if you want a more detailed explanation.

The mere mention of the possibility of a God makes you tremble, why I do not know, and certainly don't expact to find out.

Straw man attack.

Oh, and you might want to read the first line of my response to Earth again, if you wish to know how I react to the "mention of the possibility of a God". Reading = good.

 

[Sureboss]

Most of it's been covered in the last 282 pages.

 

[Touring Mars]

it's goal seems to be the fight for open thinking in science and the classroom.

The key phrase here is "seems to be" - but that's not really what this film is about at all. "Open Thinking" does not involve giving every possible idea equal merit - reason and skeptical inquiry may indeed benefit from "open-mindedness", but it also requires being discriminatory and selective.

The Creationist jibe being vaunted in this film is that nasty "Big Science" is stifling the American ideals of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Thought" by being discriminatory about what is rightly called Science. But it has been shown beyond all doubt that Creationism and it's modern disguise, "Intelligent Design", is not science but religion... So why, then, should it be added to the science curriculum? If the law were to be changed to allow for Creationism to be taught as science, we would also have to allow just about anything - without discrimination - and therefore without any standard of scientific merit (i.e. testability)... and that would be seriously bad news for our education system.

As such, this issue is far, far bigger than whether we should be teaching Darwinian evolution or not.... Apply the same Creationist logic and demands to the field of Medicine, for example, as see where we get... what is the most effective way to treat breast cancer? Mastectomy? Chemotherapy? Prayer? Is it morally right to teach in our schools and universities that prayer is as effective a medical procedure as the others? Should prayer even be called a medical procedure, despite the lack of any evidence and despite the fact that the efficacy of prayer is not even testable? I'd say not, but that is what this debate is really about - whether religion and articles of faith should be given equal merit to scientifically testable ideas...

Let's remember, although scientists are in the firing line in this case, it's not just an issue for scientists... the right to be educated free from a particular religious doctrine is written into the U.S. Constitution, and for very good reason. Not only is it sensible for our education system, it also protects our right to religious freedom as well... The ID movement are attempting to pass off academia's rejection of the ID hypothesis as 'suppression of free speech', but fail to point out that academia's rejection of the ID hypothesis is actually purely because it is an unscientific/untestable idea and has nothing to do with 'protecting our academic freedoms' at all. If anything, the ID movement is an assault on our basic freedoms by attempting to circumnavigate the Constitution and allow a specific religious doctrine back into our schools and academic institutions...

The major goal of this movie doesn't appear to be proving creation or disproving evolution.

A quick look at the website you link to in your signature suggests that "Expelled" is indeed an attack on Evolution, albeit hardly an original or particularly sophisticated one. Stein seems to equate biological evolution with Social Darwinism without so much as batting an eye lid...

Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

 

[FoolKiller]

The Creationist jibe being vaunted in this film is that nasty "Big Science" is stifling the American ideals of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Thought" by being discriminatory about what is rightly called Science. But it has been shown beyond all doubt that Creationism and it's modern disguise, "Intelligent Design", is not science but religion...

I agree this is often the case. And while I have not seen this film, the trailer hints at the notion that the problem was when a scientist made mention of a possible scientific link to point at intelligent design. He attempted to use proper scientific reasoning to point at something. I don't know the case here, but as this science versus religion debate seems to get both sides worked up it is possible that the response was uncalled for.

So why, then, should it be added to the science curriculum?

I don't think it should, mainly because, as has been pointed out, it cannot be tested. But if someone in the scientific community says, "Hey, guys, look at this," the response should not be, "NO!!!"

I'd say not, but that is what this debate is really about - whether religion and articles of faith should be given equal merit to scientifically testable ideas...

But when a scientist tries to point at something testable he is shut out. There is no middle ground here. If someone tries to point to science in the religious community he is shut out as well.

A personal example is when on these very forums I tried to explain how I can see my religious beliefs and science working together I was blatantly accused of just reaching in an attempt to justify my religious beliefs. There were a few comments about how I was being reasonable for looking at a bigger picture, but that response was the one that stuck out most to me.

That is the issue I see here, that when someone attempts to find a common ground and see where things do connect the most vocal responses are the most critical, from both sides of the debate. If the truth is somewhere in the middle we will likely never find it as long as the most vocal voices are the ones that won't even look at it.

Let's remember, although scientists are in the firing line in this case, it's not just an issue for scientists... the right to be educated free from a particular religious doctrine is written into the U.S. Constitution, and for very good reason. Not only is it sensible for our education system, it also protects our right to religious freedom as well... The ID movement are attempting to pass off academia's rejection of the ID hypothesis as 'suppression of free speech', but fail to point out that academia's rejection of the ID hypothesis is actually purely because it is an unscientific/untestable idea and has nothing to do with 'protecting our academic freedoms' at all. If anything, the ID movement is an assault on our basic freedoms by attempting to circumnavigate the Constitution and allow a specific religious doctrine back into our schools and academic institutions...

I agree with this, because as long as religious is untestable and based on no scientific principles it does not belong in a science classroom. However, the response to a child who asks should never be to tell them they are just wrong, but that religion is not something that can be held to scientific testing and thus cannot be taught as science. Again, there can be a common ground, but neither side of this debate wants to budge.

 

[Pako]

I've often said that science is finding evidence of God's creations all th time. Is it so far fetched that evolution is by design instead of by chance?

The Bible doesn't say 'how' He does it, just that He does. Not that it effects my eternal salvation, but if I want to know more of the 'how', I look to science.

 

[Touring Mars]

A personal example is when on these very forums I tried to explain how I can see my religious beliefs and science working together I was blatantly accused of just reaching in an attempt to justify my religious beliefs. There were a few comments about how I was being reasonable for looking at a bigger picture, but that response was the one that stuck out most to me.

That is the issue I see here, that when someone attempts to find a common ground and see where things do connect the most vocal responses are the most critical, from both sides of the debate. If the truth is somewhere in the middle we will likely never find it as long as the most vocal voices are the ones that won't even look at it.

I agree with this, because as long as religious is untestable and based on no scientific principles it does not belong in a science classroom. However, the response to a child who asks should never be to tell them they are just wrong, but that religion is not something that can be held to scientific testing and thus cannot be taught as science. Again, there can be a common ground, but neither side of this debate wants to budge.

There certainly is common ground, and my opinion is that your take on this debate is the closest to my own, and yet you come from a religious viewpoint and I don't... however, we both agree on the single most important point in this discussion - that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science. Unfortunately, more extreme elements of both sides of the debate want to claim people to be on "their side" by default. Evolutionist? Well, you must be an atheist. Christian? Well, you must be a Creationist... I think both of these statements are untrue... That said, although there is common ground between theists and non-theists, that common ground seems to be that Creationism ought not to be taught in schools.

I've often said that science is finding evidence of God's creations all th time. Is it so far fetched that evolution is by design instead of by chance?

The Bible doesn't say 'how' He does it, just that He does. Not that it effects my eternal salvation, but if I want to know more of the 'how', I look to science.

It's not far fetched, but the evidence simply doesn't support the design hypothesis - nor does it support the notion that species come about by pure chance.

Although I don't subscribe to the idea myself, I do have alot more time for the argument that, if there is a designing hand in nature (i.e. God), then evolution is the mechanism by which he does his creating. There is no evidence for it or against it, but if you choose to believe that notion, then at the very least, one's acceptance of the existence of the mechanism of natural selection is a whole lot more acceptable than attempting to deny that it does occur...

 

[Danoff]

Rather, it's goal seems to be the fight for open thinking in science and the classroom.

Too open is a bad thing. It has to qualify as science.

However the God he is talking about is not a being, but rather nothing more than the order and harmony we see in the universe.

You can choose to see order and harmony in the universe if you wish. You can also see disorder and chaos.

Nothing being responsible for the instant of the creation of the universe is an acceptable theory, but God isn't? Can't He even be a theory? No, He can't. Even mentioning such a thing will get you 'expelled' as Ben Stein would put it.

"Nothing" is actually what the answer has to be - even if you're religious. The only way that any of these notions about the existence of reality make any sense is if they can be tied back to nothing. Somehow you have to cope with the question of where God came from - and your answer has to be "nothing".

Scientists talk about creation and life being designed, yet creation and design cannot be attributed to a God. It cannot even be mentioned as a theory.

It's not scientific, so it simply cannot be a scientific (note that word) theory.

Taken From Stephen Hawking's Universe

"For 15 billion years, expansion has run it's course in perfect measure. What fluke in physical law has managed to strike this uncanny balance?"

This seems remarkably out of context to me.

they will find out it is orderly, complex and the chances of something happening like that at random are highly unlikely without someone controlling and guiding it all.

I don't find it all that orderly (the universe). Life is organized, but it's been organized by trial and error (quite obviously). If God had been controlling evolution, I'd think we'd have had a better result. Evolution has left us (animals - including humans) with flawed or unnecessary biological systems/parts/organs/etc. This sort of biological trash is not what I'd expect from divine intervention.

But despite the enormous odds vs the likely hood of the universe forming in all its glory by fluke accident or even a cell forming by accident most

It's ok if the odds are low if you have billions upon billions of samples. One of them is bound to turn up.

scientists today will defend to the death it is possible and did happen, and they will also defend to the death against your right to say God did it or even propose God as a theory.

Again, scientific theories have to be scientific. And I doubt there are many scientists who would claim you have no right to say God did it... let alone die to rob you of that right.

Christianity is one of the world's largest religions. It had it's origins with Judaism. While many claim Judaism borrowed it's beliefs from religions around them today all the religions Judaism supposedly borrowed from are gone. However Christianity and Judaism remain and show zero signs of leaving.

Today if you believe in God and have a religion you most likely Christain or Muslim. These religions have similiar beliefs and origins.

I love the "everybody's doing it" scientific argument.

If I remember correctly Muslims believe in the Garden of Eden and of course the Jews do. Therefore they all believe in the same creation account, Genesis. Therefore if there is a God, then the Genesis account must be his word.

[sarcasm] Q.E.D.[/sarcasm]

First why do billions of people go to a church, synagogue, mosque every week?

Humans have a spiritual need.

Ok. Answering your own question. What does our desire for God prove?

Our lives feel empty at times and going to a church feels that need... However even for atheists the idea that there is no-one out there is troubling.... The basic fact is we humans don't want to be alone in the universe... We want someone out there who is more powerful then us who can help us, whether it be God or space aliens. Every human has that natural feeling because there is someone out there greater then us who can help us.

All the more reason to be skeptical of an explanation of the universe that includes such a thing. The fact that human beings like that explanation indicates only that it was likely created by human beings.

Now how scientifically sound is Genesis?

None. 0. Not at all. It's been covered.

Does Genesis say God first created life in the seas? Yes. Does science agree life first arose in the seas? Yes.

Wait... that's not how I read it.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Did Moses happen to write that by chance?

No, see above where you write about human beings naturally cling to God-like explanations.

Is the rest of the creation account concerning the order of appearance of life on earth in harmony with what science has found? Yes.

No.

Men were the last to appear in Genesis and science accepts this.

...though, as Famine points out, this is not scientifically accurate.

Genesis is scientifically sound, yet some may never accept this.

Because it isn't.

I can just look at my hand see proof of God.

However some can look at their beautiful darling child, enjoy a delicious meal, enjoy a breathtaking sunset and attribute it all to chance.

Attribute what to chance? The child? I think the parents of the child know exactly how the child came about. The meal? I think the preparer of the meal knows why it is delicious. The sunset? Any astronomer could tell you why the sun sets. And a good biologist could probably tell you why we think it's pretty, and why we like certain foods, and why we get attached to our children.

But if someone in the scientific community says, "Hey, guys, look at this," the response should not be, "NO!!!"

If it's not a scientific theory that can/should be the response.

If someone tries to point to science in the religious community he is shut out as well.

Not entirely true. The religious community often attempts to misuse science to try to prove that faith is justified. The irony there is not lost on me.

If the truth is somewhere in the middle we will likely never find it as long as the most vocal voices are the ones that won't even look at it.

What is the probability that the truth is in the middle?

Is it so far fetched that evolution is by design instead of by chance?

Evolution is not by chance. And yes, it is far fetched that evolution is controlled or guided - the results just don't bear that out.

 

[FoolKiller]

If it's not a scientific theory that can/should be the response.

If the trailer is representing what happened clearly then this was a response to published research.

As I said though, I haven't seen it and it is quite possible that the research was chock full of problems. I would be skeptical of that being possible in a Smithsonian supported paper, but after seeing the stuff that is passing in the global warming debate I have to admit it is possible it was just plain bad.

My point being, if someone has some form of good science that may point toward intelligent design of any form it cannot just pushed aside in the scientific community.

Not entirely true. The religious community often attempts to misuse science to try to prove that faith is justified. The irony there is not lost on me.

Well, I also see the misquoting/lack of understanding of quotes used go both ways in this debate as well.

What is the probability that the truth is in the middle?

If I knew the answer to that would we still be having this debate?

 

[Pako]

Evolution is not by chance. And yes, it is far fetched that evolution is controlled or guided - the results just don't bear that out.

What do the results tell us about evolution then? Evolution occurs out of a need or purpose?

 

[Danoff]

What do the results tell us about evolution then? Evolution occurs out of a need or purpose?

Mutations occur by chance. Evolution occurs via natural selection - logic.

 

[Earth]

Misrepresentation. Men were not the last to appear. Semantically, all life currently on Earth is the last to appear on its particular branch. Accurately, new species have arisen since mankind (perhaps because of mankind) did.

According to the theory of evolution, when can we start to call men 'men'? Does the cromagnon count as man? Or does the furry bent over half-ape half-man missing link constitute as man?

The bible says every basic type of creature, whether it be bird or fish or any other basic type of creature, existed before man appeared.

It is impossible to compare the timetable of Genesis and the timetable of evolutionary thought, because the timetable of evolutionary thought is ever changing. One day modern man arose millions of years ago, the next day modern man arose 50,000 years ago.

A new fossil is discovered and man arose 500,000 years ago but managed to keep his population at near zero for 490,000+ years

Genesis is as scientifically sound as Clifford the Big Red Dog.

That would be funny if it weren't 100% wrong.

Look past the time differences, as obviously the measurment of time was different, we can see this when men don't live 900+ years, and then where is the scientific inaccuracy?

Why can't men live 900 years? The day scientists find out how and why we age/grow old and die is the day they can say men living 900 years is not possible. Until that day it is up to them to prove living 900 years is not possible.

According to Genesis God was responsible for deciding how long humans lived, and after the flood Genesis says He reduced the maximum of age of humans to 120 years and later on to 80-90 years.

Science accepts the possibility of more advanced beings - it practically guarantees it. The problem isn't science misunderstanding religion, it's religionistas misrepresenting science - as per the second part Earth posted about science agreeing that man is the last species to arise (which is wholly untrue). For some reason it's thought that no-one will notice if you make things up and say "science says this" in order to back up a story.

You do misunderstand religion. In your mind the Genesis account can never be right or seen as scientifically sound when in fact it can be

I don't make things up. Saying I do is quite the slap in the face. I have read and watched hundreds of hours of information on evolution, creationism, space aliens, scientific theories, and I continue to do so to this day. When I do so the fact there is a God comes even more apparent. Evolutionary programs continue to show the large gaps and missing links in the theory and programs on the universe contine to show how organized and wonderfully made it is.

The key phrase here is "seems to be" - but that's not really what this film is about at all. "Open Thinking" does not involve giving every possible idea equal merit - reason and skeptical inquiry may indeed benefit from "open-mindedness", but it also requires being discriminatory and selective.

The Creationist jibe being vaunted in this film is that nasty "Big Science" is stifling the American ideals of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Thought" by being discriminatory about what is rightly called Science. But it has been shown beyond all doubt that Creationism and it's modern disguise, "Intelligent Design", is not science but religion... So why, then, should it be added to the science curriculum? If the law were to be changed to allow for Creationism to be taught as science, we would also have to allow just about anything - without discrimination - and therefore without any standard of scientific merit (i.e. testability)... and that would be seriously bad news for our education system.

I used 'seems to be' because I have not seen the movie. I'm not sure if I will see it in theatres, I don't feel like sitting between creation and evolution fanatics.

Notice in the 7 minute trailer of Ben Stein's movie Dr. Meyer published an article that said DNA appears to not have come by chance. Did he not 'test' this theory? ID is testable. If you found a dictionary you know someone made it somewhere at sometime. However evolution says the dictionary, or far more complex life arose by chance. What has to be tested? Mere math says the dictionary did not appear by chance. That's plenty of testing if you ask me.

As such, this issue is far, far bigger than whether we should be teaching Darwinian evolution or not.... Apply the same Creationist logic and demands to the field of Medicine, for example, as see where we get... what is the most effective way to treat breast cancer? Mastectomy? Chemotherapy? Prayer? Is it morally right to teach in our schools and universities that prayer is as effective a medical procedure as the others? Should prayer even be called a medical procedure, despite the lack of any evidence and despite the fact that the efficacy of prayer is not even testable? I'd say not, but that is what this debate is really about - whether religion and articles of faith should be given equal merit to scientifically testable ideas...

I have no problem with the modern medical system. What religions would want it changed? Prayer as a medical procedure...as far as I know when prayer is used for medical issues you are asking God to guide the doctors and help everything to turn out right. Sure there is some loony religions who will let a little girl die of pneumonia while they pray for what I don't know but the vast majority of those who pray believe in the infamous illustration of God sending a stranded survivor who prayed for help rescue boat after rescue boat but the survivor denied them all until he eventually was about to drown. Then he said "God why didn't you help me!" Then God says " I sent you 10 rescue boats you dummy!"

Let's remember, although scientists are in the firing line in this case, it's not just an issue for scientists... the right to be educated free from a particular religious doctrine is written into the U.S. Constitution, and for very good reason. Not only is it sensible for our education system, it also protects our right to religious freedom as well... The ID movement are attempting to pass off academia's rejection of the ID hypothesis as 'suppression of free speech', but fail to point out that academia's rejection of the ID hypothesis is actually purely because it is an unscientific/untestable idea and has nothing to do with 'protecting our academic freedoms' at all. If anything, the ID movement is an assault on our basic freedoms by attempting to circumnavigate the Constitution and allow a specific religious doctrine back into our schools and academic institutions...

So if someone painted a masterpiece, then dissappeared, would it be sane to claim there is no painter because the artist cannot be found or tested? If DNA looks like someone designed it, yet because we can't directly contact or test or measure any higher beings who might be responsible the idea it was designed should not be considered?

The idea ID cannot be tested is rediculous. Why are all amino acids left handed and not right handed? How did the universe manage to expand within a .00000000000001 tolerance? How did a cell manage to form itself despite enormous mathematical odds that mathematicians say are impossible to overcome without the aid of someone?

Why is the early universe right after the big bang now considered highly ordered after such so called random chaotic event?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

And if evolution is such an acceptable theory that is able to be tested why is it still just a theory?

You may claim ID is an attempt to put religious ideas in school, but is that a good reason to ban the idea from scientific theories of how life arose on earth if scientists are proving it as a logical possibility?

You can choose to see order and harmony in the universe if you wish. You can also see disorder and chaos.

The order of the universe far outweighs any disorder and chaos. That should be hard to believe if everything arose by blind chance. Afterall, a bomb does not create order.

"Nothing" is actually what the answer has to be - even if you're religious. The only way that any of these notions about the existence of reality make any sense is if they can be tied back to nothing. Somehow you have to cope with the question of where God came from - and your answer has to be "nothing".

God has always been. He did not come from anything. He created the physical universe using his energy. This includes time, everything. Humans may have a hard time understanding this because we all have a beginning. For

I don't find it all that orderly (the universe). Life is organized, but it's been organized by trial and error (quite obviously). If God had been controlling evolution, I'd think we'd have had a better result. Evolution has left us (animals - including humans) with flawed or unnecessary biological systems/parts/organs/etc. This sort of biological trash is not what I'd expect from divine intervention.

People who study the universe find it orderly.

So called unnecessary biological parts will most likely soon find a meaning. If One of the previously thought 'biological trash' organs (can't remember its name) was found out to help with infection in the body. It's just a matter of time before all the 'biological trash' in us is found to be usefull.

It's ok if the odds are low if you have billions upon billions of samples. One of them is bound to turn up.

Billions and Billions of samples won't help that much. The odds of a simple protein forming at random is 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (123 zeros)

Thats quite more than billions and billions

The odds of a cell forming at random is 1: something like 50,000 zeros. Mathematicians say anything more than 1: 50 zeros is most likely improbable.

None. 0. Not at all. It's been covered.

If you believe Genesis is not scientifically sound on any points, then congratulations on being 100% wrong.

Genesis says life first arose in the seas. But since Genesis is 0% right, that must not be a scientific fact. So where did life first form? I'm pretty sure it was the seas but according to you Genesis got it wrong.

 

[Famine]

The bible says every basic type of creature, whether it be bird or fish or any other basic type of creature, existed before man appeared.

Then the Bible is wrong.

That would be funny if it weren't 100% wrong.

Then it's funny. Hurrah

You do misunderstand religion. In your mind the Genesis account can never be right or seen as scientifically sound when in fact it can be.

It neither is nor can be.

I don't make things up. Saying I do is quite the slap in the face. I have read and watched hundreds of hours of information on evolution, creationism, space aliens, scientific theories, and I continue to do so to this day.

Allow me to quote you directly, again:

Men were the last to appear in Genesis and science accepts this.

This is absolutely incorrect - save for the bit about Genesis. Science neither accepts nor states than mankind is the last species to have arisen.

You made this claim. It is not the truth.

So now tell me how you "don't make things up"?

The idea ID cannot be tested is rediculous. Why are all amino acids left handed and not right handed?

They aren't. Again you've formed an idea from half of the science.

How did the universe manage to expand within a .00000000000001 tolerance?

The huh?

How did a cell manage to form itself despite enormous mathematical odds that mathematicians say are impossible to overcome without the aid of someone?

Enormous mathematical odds are irrelevant given a big enough sample space. Oh look! The universe.

If you believe Genesis is not scientifically sound on any points, then congratulations on being 100% wrong.

Genesis says life first arose in the seas. But since Genesis is 0% right, that must not be a scientific fact. So where did life first form? I'm pretty sure it was the seas but according to you Genesis got it wrong.

Dan quoted Genesis to you. He posted it in his response. It doesn't agree with what you're saying it says. And yet you still stick to your guns here?

 

[Touring Mars]

I used 'seems to be' because I have not seen the movie. I'm not sure if I will see it in theatres, I don't feel like sitting between creation and evolution fanatics.

That makes two of us!

ID is testable. If you found a dictionary you know someone made it somewhere at sometime. However evolution says the dictionary, or far more complex life arose by chance.

No it doesn't... Evolution theory says that species arise from natural selection - the non-random survival of species who are most fit for their environment. If species arose by pure chance, monkeys could give birth to baby whales, but that doesn't happen. We can see proof of that with every live birth in the recorded history of the planet - every living thing is biologically related to it's ancestors - always has been and always will be. There is also incontravertible proof that genetic mutations happen, some terribly detrimental (like the ones that cause Cystic Fibrosis, for example) and some that confer ever-so-slight advantages that increase one's chances of survival - this is the cornerstone of natural selection... yes, so the mutation is random, but the fact that it confers a selective advantage is totally non-random.

So if someone painted a masterpiece, then dissappeared, would it be sane to claim there is no painter because the artist cannot be found or tested? If DNA looks like someone designed it, yet because we can't directly contact or test or measure any higher beings who might be responsible the idea it was designed should not be considered?

Certainly the idea that DNA was designed should be explored, and it has been... the fact that nobody has ever found any evidence for design in any living thing is a key point. The appearance of design and actual design are very different things. Some of the most ordered things in the natural world look for all the world like they are designed, and yet you can make them in a children's chemistry set if you wanted. Crystals, snowflakes, amyloid fibrils (which I have made in the lab myself) etc. are all examples of natural phenomena which exhibit extraordinary 'design' and yet actually self-assemble according to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Why are all amino acids left handed and not right handed?

Although this is not technically true i.e. there are right-handed amino acids, just not found abundantly in living things, homochirality in nature is not a signature of a divine creator. Indeed, my old boss is a leading authority on chirality and my Ph.D was based on the study of how different senses of chiral molecules scatter light differently... what does that tell us about anything? Well, for one thing, it shows that left and right handed stereoisomers are not physically identical. Also, we know that stereoisomers have very different physical and chemical properties - the infamous drug Thalidomide is a potent example of that (one isomer is therapeutic and the other causes birth defects...). Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that left-handed amino acids and the structures that they form with other left-handed amino acids are ever-so-slightly energetically favourable.. And once the template was made, the rest had no choice but to follow suit...

How did a cell manage to form itself despite enormous mathematical odds that mathematicians say are impossible to overcome without the aid of someone?

It is clear from current lifeforms that multicellular organisms arose from simpler life forms - the mitochondria are a great example... once free-living bacteria, they are now part of larger organisms. Even our own mitochondria have their own DNA...

Whoever said that cellular life is mathematically impossible without an external guiding hand is plain wrong. Cumulative selection is an awesomely powerful odds-cutter.

The fundamental processes of cell replication and sex cell formation (mitosis and meiosis) show us that single cells are not only capable of making copies of themselves, but are also capable of producing multi-cellular life forms from a single cell precursor (indeed, this is how every human being on the planet forms). The fact that order and complexity can arise from simpler beginnings is evident throughout the natural world, and it doesn't take a great leap of faith to suggest that the same forces that make this able to happen also gave rise to the first cells from simpler beginnings. Fossil evidence has shown that the first cells probably arose from biomolecules lining the insides of tiny vesicle-shaped bubbles in rocks, and eventually forming a fully enclosed protective layer so that they would survive outwith the protective confines of the rock. Similarly, other organelles and types of cells found protection within the protective layers of other cells, and hence the first 'multi-cellular' organisms were born...

And if evolution is such an acceptable theory that is able to be tested why is it still just a theory?

Because the word theory is often misunderstood and, in the case of Creationists, deliberately misrepresented. Theory is a higher level of explanation than a fact, theories explain a set of facts... e.g. Atomic Theory explains our current understanding of atomic structure. Evolution Theory explains our current understanding of the origin of species. But Atomic Theory books will never be renamed "Atomic Fact" books... notice I refrain from calling ID a theory, because it is not a theory - it's a hypothesis that has yet to find any evidence to support it and hence ID theory is a misnomer.

You may claim ID is an attempt to put religious ideas in school, but is that a good reason to ban the idea from scientific theories of how life arose on earth if scientists are proving it as a logical possibility?

No, it's not a good enough reason to "ban" the idea from discussion in schools - what is a good enough reason to not discuss it in schools, though, is that of all the logical possibilities, the only scientific theory that has found such overwhelming evidential support is the theory of evolution. That's the reason why alternatives don't get much airtime any more - but all opposing ideas have had their chance. Religious ideas, however, can never be disproved or tested by evidence, and since Intelligent Design is a religious hypothesis, it cannot be accepted as a scientific alternative to evolution.