Subject:
|
Evolution... it never ends
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:00:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2746 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Bellis wrote:
> Surely the models can be allowed to evolve. Then models with God as the
> designer can be compared with models without a designer and the results
> compared. i.e. you can determine for yourself whether it makes more sense for
> there to be a God who designed it all or no designer. Is this not a genetic
> algorithm?
You are free to suggest any model or theory you want. But if you want to
challenge an existing scientific model, then you need to present an alternative
SCIENTIFIC model. So far no one has presented a scientific model for intelligent
design. Instead, intelligent design advocates have mainly been busy trying to
discredit evolution, and by doing so hope to then convince people that
intelligent design is the only alternative that can be responsible for life.
Most of these attempts involve the gross manipulation and blatant abuse of
statistics, mathematics, facts, and experimental evidence. This smacks of
extreme personal bias by those pushing these ideas. Intelligent Design advocates
are trying to have these ideas taught as science in our public schools! I
personally find that extremely dangerous. Would you want your children to learn
to apply math and the scientific method incorrectly?
> The fact that there are many people who favour each type of model is more reason
> to keep testing.
So what exactly are YOU testing? Evolution continues to be tested, both by the
same scientific community that supports it, and even the creationists that
oppose it. There is no monopoly on the concept of evolution, or astronomy, or
particle physics, etc.
Also note that it is not entirely inconceivable for science to investigate
intelligent design or other religious based ideas. For instance in Carl Sagan's
novel Contact, evidence of intelligent design was uncovered by decoding
intelligent messages hidden deep within transcendental numbers - i.e. sewn into
the very fabric of our universe. Of course that was a work of fiction.
A number of scientific experiments have been performed involving near-death
out-of-body experiences. I am certainly not opposed to performing such
experiments and looking for such evidence or lack of - using the SCIENTIFIC
METHOD. Yet at this time no supporting evidence of has been found so far.
> Personally, I consistently find that it makes more sense to me
> for God to have designed things the way they are, simply because of how well
> everything fits together. No man could have designed it so well, so it makes
> sense for there to be a greater intelligence. My repeated testing is part of
> questioning my faith.
That's a very human-biased viewpoint, which is somewhat understandable. What is
your metric for "so well designed"? Do you have a "not so well designed" case
that arose from random variation and natural selection alone to compare it to?
J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
| (...) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is the point of Creation (and religion) not that it needs no "SCIENTIFIC model"? It is a simple solution to a complex question: “What am I ?”. (...) My body hair, nipples, appendix and coccyx all appear to have no (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
