logo Sign In

A Big Debate for the New Century

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Intelligent Design vs Evolution:

What are your thoughts? Can random chance account for the complexity of the universe, let alone life itself? Why do evolutionary biologists steadfastly cling to what many consider to be a deeply flawed theory? Why is it that if you question Neo-Darwinsim you're immediately branded a nutcase religious whack job? Who really controls the debate? Can a proponent of intelligent design get a fair hearing in any forum?

A simple formula: Low probability + High information content = design (most of the time)
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Well, I believe in biological evolution. But I think more people (including myself) would be more open-minded to the 'intelligent design' idea if it were presented like you just did, i.e. thoughful and concise, with supporting arguments. Sadly, a lot of people use the "itz in da bible so itz reel!!!1" as their first and last supporting argument. That wasn't a jab at religious people, but rather people who use religion to replace all levels of common sense and critical thinking. I think a balance can and should exist.

I'm just curious, but where do you get the low probability variable? Due to the sheer size of the universe (it being limitless and all), I would think that the probability of life developing somewhere would be relatively high.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Windexed
I'm just curious, but where do you get the low probability variable? Due to the sheer size of the universe (it being limitless and all), I would think that the probability of life developing somewhere would be relatively high.


Actually, the people who support the evolutionary side of things tend to espouse that life is not unique to earth, however given the limited number of planets that would support life (relative to the overall size of the universe), I believe you're still talking about a long shot. I am a believer in Intelligent Design, however I realize that I cannot support my arguments with the bible. The ID side of the debate has MANY proponents who are not carrying bibles as their only means of defense (see this link). Unfortunately, they're in the minority. "Give a professor a false theory early in life and he'll defend it until he dies" - not sure who said it but I like it...


see this link
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Know how many evolutionary bioligists it takes to change a lightbulb? None...given enough time and random chance the lightbulb will change itself.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
JediSage, it wasn't clear to me if you oppose darwinism because of your religion or because you simply dosen't "belive" it. To me, there's nothing to "belive", it's the truth. I mean, how many people today "belive" the Earth spins around the Sun, and not the opposite? People don't belive it, they KNOW that. Darwin's evolutionary theory is true, it has been documented, studied, and prooven. Even the church has partially agreed with it, in it's route to modernization.

And it's not "random", it dosen't work like that. On every specie, future generations may have different atributes, and if those atributes are better for survival, those "different" species are most likely to survive and perpetuate their own species. It's logical to me.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
JediSage, it wasn't clear to me if you oppose darwinism because of your religion or because you simply dosen't "belive" it. To me, there's nothing to "belive", it's the truth. I mean, how many people today "belive" the Earth spins around the Sun, and not the opposite? People don't belive it, they KNOW that. Darwin's evolutionary theory is true, it has been documented, studied, and prooven. Even the church has partially agreed with it, in it's route to modernization.

And it's not "random", it dosen't work like that. On every specie, future generations may have different atributes, and if those atributes are better for survival, those "different" species are most likely to survive and perpetuate their own species. It's logical to me.


My reasons for believing what I do are many-fold, however a belief rooted in religion should not necessarily disqualify it without a hearing. Couching an argument as Science vs Religion automatically puts the folks who may be religious on the defensive, and I have to ask who's being more dogmatic in that situation. Unfortunately it seems like that happens a lot nowadays when Darwinism is called into question.

Anyhoo. A theory is just that...a theory. Theory: Noun, An assumption based on limited information or knowledge, a conjecture. Theories have been disproven or modified in the past. Darwin's theory has been used to "prove" evolution as the origin of species (no pun intended), however as an origin theory it falls short by a mile. For instance, what fossil record is there indicating that one order evolved from another (transitional)? Is there evidence that one order at one point was a different order (ie: a dog that became a horse)? Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order? Why would Einstein have said "God does not play dice with the cosmos" if he had not at least considered a designed universe? There are other reasons to believe in a designed universe...the Big Bang (an ultimate beginning in time and space), the conservation of matter (matter can neither be created or destroyed)...it goes on and on.

BTW: I do believe the more moderate Darwin theory that evolution is responsible for changes in an already existing species over time. This is often called Survival of the Fittest. However, and I realize this is off topic in this thread...a lot of the people who tend to buy into Darwinism as an explanation for origin, tend to forget this piece of the theory. For example, over the weekend I saw one of those "amazing video" programs where these folks from some environmentalist program went nuts trying to save a polar bear that climbed up a cliff and couldn't get down. Why bother? Hasn't it been "selected" to die?

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
OK I separated your reply to make it easier to answer:

Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

1- For instance, what fossil record is there indicating that one order evolved from another (transitional)?

2- Is there evidence that one order at one point was a different order (ie: a dog that became a horse)?

3- Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order?

4- Why would Einstein have said "God does not play dice with the cosmos" if he had not at least considered a designed universe? There are other reasons to believe in a designed universe...the Big Bang (an ultimate beginning in time and space), the conservation of matter (matter can neither be created or destroyed)...it goes on and on.


1- Have you heard of homo erectus, neandertal man, homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens (us)?

2- What do you mean?

3- It's not like that. After hundreds or thousands of years, the genetic code of a specie might get mutated/changed for a number of reasons. Let's assume a generation of bears gets born with eyes who can see in the dark better: those are more fit to survive, therefore they carry out these genes to the next generation, and the non-adapted species tend to disappear slowly. I KNOW it's not that simple, it was just an example.

4- Uh, that einstein quote is related to the whole "multi-universe-Schrodinger's cat" theory thing, about the randomness of the universe and such. I fail to see in what it relates to Darwin.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK I separated your reply to make it easier to answer:

Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

1- For instance, what fossil record is there indicating that one order evolved from another (transitional)?

2- Is there evidence that one order at one point was a different order (ie: a dog that became a horse)?

3- Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order?

4- Why would Einstein have said "God does not play dice with the cosmos" if he had not at least considered a designed universe? There are other reasons to believe in a designed universe...the Big Bang (an ultimate beginning in time and space), the conservation of matter (matter can neither be created or destroyed)...it goes on and on.


1- Have you heard of homo erectus, neandertal man, homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens (us)?

2- What do you mean?

3- It's not like that. After hundreds or thousands of years, the genetic code of a specie might get mutated/changed for a number of reasons. Let's assume a generation of bears gets born with eyes who can see in the dark better: those are more fit to survive, therefore they carry out these genes to the next generation, and the non-adapted species tend to disappear slowly. I KNOW it's not that simple, it was just an example.

4- Uh, that einstein quote is related to the whole "multi-universe-Schrodinger's cat" theory thing, about the randomness of the universe and such. I fail to see in what it relates to Darwin.



Taking yours in order:

1. Homo erectus, neandrethal man, et al: Has it been conclusively proven that they are common ancestors of homo sapiens? The only "proof" I've ever seen was a poster on the wall in my grade-school science classroom of a long line of apes starting at the beginning of time, each one standing more erect than the other. Perhaps when they find this year's missing link?

2. Is there anything in the fossil record that would prove one form of life that used to be another? Using my example above, is there a horse with canine type teeth?

3. Again, not disagreeing that evolution can account for changes to existing species over time. It CANNOT however, account for origins of species.

4. Whether Einstein was talking about randomness of the universe or whether the sky was blue, my point in using it was that the quote pre-supposes that one of the greatest minds in the history of man believed in a guided universe. This can get tricky, as I've never read too deeply on Einstein, so again, take this as I've stated. The QUOTE pre-supposes belief in a guided universe.

If a fish were to evolve lungs, would it swim to shore and get out of the water? No...it would drown.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I try to keep an open mind about things. I like to listen to everyone and then accept what I think makes the most sense.

I have no idea what I think.

Whether we were just spawned from nothing in the primordial seas or something planted the first seeds of life, I don't know, but I do feel evolutionary processes have given us the lifeforms currently existing on Earth right now.
If you examine the fossil record, which as an amateur paleontologist I have done to a greater degree than many, you can trace how a small dog-sized animal with 4 toes slowly evolved into the far larger quarter horse of the Kentucky Derby.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
I try to keep an open mind about things. I like to listen to everyone and then accept what I think makes the most sense.


That is all we can hope for. Unfortunately, the debate seems to get mired in the Noble Scientist vs the Religious Nut and vise versa name calling and the facts get lost in the mix. I don't think pointing out the flaws in evolutionary biology (as it is used to explain origins) to school children who are supposed to be learning the truth is an evil thing. I hope this can continue to be a good debate.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I'm with Starkiller on this. I don't know what to think. But I will say this. I do think it should be taught in schools, as a theory. If you want to point out the flaws, I'm ok with that so long as the flaws are found scientifically. In other words don't go saying that the theory of evolution is wrong because the Bible says its wrong.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
I with Starkiller on this. I don't know what to think. But I will say this. I do think it should be taught in schools, as a theory. If you want to point out the flaws, I'm ok with that so long as the flaws are found scientifically. In other words don't go saying that the theory of evolution is wrong because the Bible says its wrong.


This is the rub for me...the evolutionist side of the issue has so framed the debate so as to paint anyone who questions it as a bible toting whacko. For instance, the case in Georgia where the school board wanted to put stickers on the text books stating that evolution is a theory, and that many people consider it to be flawed. Immediately the press labeled anyone in favor of the stickers as being "creationist", which due to decades of negative imagery since the much lauded (inaccurately, I might add) Scopes Monkey trial carries some pretty heavy baggage.

I have no problem with evolution being presented in classrooms, however alternate theories should also be presented...as you say, as theory.



Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
this is a good step in the right direction. Having a debate about evolution can sometimes be tricky. I will say that yes I am a Christian and believe the Bible is true. At the same time, there has to be physical evidence that supports creation in order for me to have an intelligent debate with other people about it. Now I don't clam to know everything, in fact that's why you hear the "it's in the Bible so it has to be true" line, because most of the christians who get into the debate don't know enough of the facts and how to use them. I would welcome alternative origins being taught in the classroom as theories and i would like evolution stressed as a theory and not as a fact, because lets face it we have no real way of being certain by physical means. The same could be said for creation. No one was there to witness it so how do we really confirm it scentifically? The truth is, that in order to take both at face value as fact and truth, one must believe and have faith in it. That's really the only way I can see that happening.

But really, what are the flaws of evolution as a theory? I'm all ears. Have you guys heard the news that some scientists are questioning whether the spead of light is even a constant? These are secular scientist and they have been studying this and researching it and they think that Einstien was wrong about the speed of light being a constant.
"Who's scruffy-lookin'?" - Han Solo
"I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself." -sybeman
"You know, putting animals in the microwave is not a good idea. I had to learn that one the hard way." -seanwookie
Author
Time
Post link
Well said, Radic!
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
A friend of mine who was a strong Christian used to like to coincorporate both views of how humanity came into existence. His idea was that the Bible never really said how long each of those first seven days was. He believed that God created the universe and whatnot but that is not to discount the whole Big Bang theory because the Big Bang was likely the method used. BB dictates that it was millions of years of swirling gases that resulted in the universe and he thinks that could be God's "on the first day." Same with evolution. He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day."

I liked it. Seemed to work for me.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
A friend of mine who was a strong Christian used to like to coincorporate both views of how humanity came into existence. His idea was that the Bible never really said how long each of those first seven days was. He believed that God created the universe and whatnot but that is not to discount the whole Big Bang theory because the Big Bang was likely the method used. BB dictates that it was millions of years of swirling gases that resulted in the universe and he thinks that could be God's "on the first day." Same with evolution. He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day."

I liked it. Seemed to work for me.


Apparently he is also familiar with the play "Inherit the Wind".

BTW, I suppose everyone on this thread should see Inherit the Wind.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk

I liked it. Seemed to work for me.


Apparently he is also familiar with the play "Inherit the Wind".

BTW, I suppose everyone on this thread should see Inherit the Wind.


If it presented the facts in a relatively unbiased manner I'd sign up to watch it. Is Spencer Tracy in that?

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I've heard of Inherit the Wind but have never seen it nor know what it's about. Can't guarantee if my friend has seen it or not either. He claims to have gotten the ideas from a friend of his. Maybe that friend saw it.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
I've heard of Inherit the Wind but have never seen it nor know what it's about. Can't guarantee if my friend has seen it or not either. He claims to have gotten the ideas from a friend of his. Maybe that friend saw it.


From what I understand of the original case, the prosecuting attorney that took the stand was never allowed to cross examine the defense because they changed their plea the minute he stepped down. Don't think that is presented in Inherit the wind..
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
So Inherit the Wind is all about Scopes?
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
So Inherit the Wind is all about Scopes?


I believe it is, however I've never seen it myself.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
It most definitely is about the Scopes monkey trail. It is a great movie. One of my favorites. But be warned it does take side of evolutionists. It is not non biased. (IMHO)

It stars Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March. Both give great preformances. I highly recommend this movie.
Author
Time
Post link
There is also the equaly great re-film with Jack Lemon and George C Scott (in his last role).
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
good? yes "equally great"? I don't know. Jack Lemon and George C Scott are good, but not as good Tracy and March. (imho)
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
good? yes "equally great"? I don't know. Jack Lemon and George C Scott are good, but not as good Tracy and March. (imho)


I like George C Scott, and the movie is almost remade shot-by-shot, so it's equally great. Of course it's not THAT good, I mean that's Spences Tracy, but still...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering