Evolution vs. Creation

Some critiques of ID by people who hold far more PhDs than I do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

This is fascinating lecture by Ken Miller, if you have the time, the bandwidth and the inclination to watch (it is over two hours long). Mr. Miller is the author of the textbook which had the infamous "Evolution is theory and not fact" stickers attached to it, before being presented to students for their consideration. Miller is not, as one might expect, an atheist, but rather a Roman Catholic, although I'm not quite sure that this fact qualifies him as a balanced viewpoint, seeing as the Vatican endorses Darwin.

http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-a...y11122006x.mp3

That one's a bit shorter. It's a Guardian podcast talking mainly about the ID controversy on the British Isles. The speakers include an ID proponent from the Truth in Science group, a theistic Darwinist and an atheistic one, who sounds quite a lot like Sir Ian McKellen. McKellen is, of course, the actor who recently charmed the American intelligent design crowd by being a homosexual atheist who appeared in The DaVinci Code and made smart remarks about Jesus on television. There are side discussions of life on Mars, left-handedness and rapping urban birds. Really.

Excellent link. The Ken Miller lecture is fantastic. Too bad i couldnt see the whole thing: it is supposedly two hours long yet it only runs up to 51 min?
I cant believe that guy isnt an atheist.

I get 117 minutes, but who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.


Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be right before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.

---

I regreat to inform you, Cuppa, that you are not unique. Left-index finger? I also have a mass of callus, from a botched skin graft when I got said finger hung in a machine! Makes a good weather predictor, but makes it difficult sometimes to play guitar well!

And you are ever the Gentleman, mon ami. I would that many more were. God bless! :)

Ouch! Interestingly, my callused left hand is a result of playing that same instrument to excess. I've met people with the shapes of strings permenantly etched into their fingers, but I'm not quite at that point yet. Most instruments will destroy your hands one way or another, except, for some reason, the piano. Pianists always have beautiful hands.

But I digress...

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie B.

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on

---

No, there are plenty of coherent abiogenic theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie B.

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on

---

Does it not, therefore, also prove that a recurring myriad of other gods existed before the present one, each creating the next?

Hi Miss Darcy,

Y'all have pretty much debated this to death, so I won't add to it--other than to say that to me, evolution is fact, and does not necessarily preclude a creator. My real reason for posting is to introduce myself (I just joined the forum a few minutes ago). And to tell you that your Aldous Huxley quote is one of my favorites too.

Cheers

I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie B.

... if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

---

Hi Stephanie,

I'd suggest that you take this opportunity to learn. Sign up for a biology class at your local college; talk to a biologist; research on your own. The questions you have asked demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. The evidence is there, all you need do is open your eyes and your mind.

But the key is happiness. If your happiness will be diminished by learning some stuff that may contradict what you've always believed, then don't take that step. When you get to the end of your life and look back, the amount of true happiness you've experienced will be all that really matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie B.

I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

---

Try watching the video linked in cuppajoes post a few posts ago, there's an explanation at the beginning about theories and facts in science.
Still:
Evolution: Scientific theory
Creationism: Religious belief
Should beliefs be taught in schools instead of theories?
Not in my opinion.

what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?

but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...

and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...

...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
Let me explain:

In my opinion, science is a tool that can be used by people to examine and explore their world, and explain what has happened. and religion is the metaphor, or story that presents the facts in a means that is universally understandible. by this I mean, that not all people are "scientists", and need to be able to understand there surroundings...

the problem is with extremes, and the inability to accept that what one is saying is wrong, ignorant or biased. both for religeous and scientific fanatics.

The thing is that people should live in a balance or harmony, and accept both, because though they are presented differently, they are the same damned things. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?

but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...

and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...

...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
Let me explain:

the problem is with extremes, and the inability to accept that what one is saying is wrong, ignorant or biased. both for religeous and scientific fanatics.

The thing is that people should live in a balance or harmony, and accept both, because though they are presented differently, they are the same damned things. :)

---

Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n. :D

1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...

2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...

So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is right—both are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. “Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n. :D

1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...

2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...

So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is right—both are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. “Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...”

---

I suppose it's just a matter of empirical data...quantity vs qaulity...but...there are some very questionable theories protected, by lack of disproof, and but beliefs, IMO, are the same as tehories...one must believe in the theory or not...both "sides" ( a term I hate since I consider science and religon to be as the same) have theories, with their own concept of fact.

(BTW I am not a scientologist...I just think science and religion, are basically the same things described differently)