Life, death, evolution, and intelligent design.... these concepts seem self evident until we try to define them. But here is a thought experiment about these topics. It seems clear that life implies death; what ever is living will eventually die. In order to persist beyond death, life must also have the capability to reproduce. It also seems clear that this replication often (maybe always) does not happen with absolute accuracy. And so variation arises during reproduction. And so, to some extent life forms can and do Change over time. This variation sometimes is minor or nuetral, sometimes might help survival, and sometimes may be counter productive to survival. It seems obvious that changes which promote survival will naturally flourish, counter productive changes may survive but will less commonly thrive, and neutral changes will add indifferent variety. We know that the environment changes in various ways over time. (Ice ages, droughts, etc) These changes must encourage different features in life forms life will therefore naturally change over time Such changes seem self apparent and indistinguishable from natural selection, and therefore evolution As far as I can see, no reasonable person can dispute these observations And, as far as I can see, the creationist-intelligent design position diverges only on the point of that absolute origin of life and species. The assertion being that life does change (evolve) but that life could not have spontaneously self generated through natural processes. And that therefore life must have originated via a supernatural cause...intelligent designer... god It seems further asserted that there is no (or insufficient) evidence that evolution could cause sufficient changes to create diverse species. So while evolution might have driven diversity within specieces... gods design must be the origin of separate species Then, ultimately, it turns out the insufficiency of natural evolution... provides a Proof that a supernatural god (intelligent designer) is necessary. So endorsing a natural origin of life or species indirectly undermines the fundamental necessity for there to be a god. Imo this is why disputes about evolution become so heated. These are not discussions about science. They wind up being life and death struggles about the existence of god.
Nope. Seeing a quarter on the ground and not knowing where it came from does not imply in any way that the quarter's presence is an act of "god." Because we do not know how something works does not mean it is the work of any "higher being." See also: Spontaneous generation, Genesis, Noah, and other myths and fables.
This is an accurate assessment of the futility of these debates. Any science is dismissed by those who promote ID/Creation in favor of the "God" they refuse to admit they are promoting.
The problem becomes one of not believing in a supernatural being setting things in motion (I'm an atheist so I don't believe in gods) and of not believing there's been enough time for complex systems like DNA to evolve. Watch this 4-minute video of the "Chromosome and Kinetichore". I guarantee you'll be astounded that anything so complex could have evolved in the time since the Big Bang. If you're impatient, go to the 2 minute mark for the really eye-popping stuff.
Well, look someone trying to refute hard science with philosophy. Its like trying to refute the existence of the internal combustion engine with Plato. No, life doesn't imply death, it is true that all living things that we have ever known have died but that doesn't mean life implies death. I am nitpicking here as this isn't your main point but sloppy assumptions like this are rampant in your post. You explained the basic idea of natural selection and mutations very beautifully. I would have liked this post except for the last part of your post where everything goes completely downhill. This paragraph reveals you utter lack of knowledge of this debate. Creationists don't just deny spontaneous generation which is abiogenesis and completely separate from evolution, they deny that life evolved from a common ancestor which is Darwin's theory. Lets be very clear here. Darwin's theory is all about creating diverse species, and claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor the ultimate claim of diverse species evolving. So if you don't believe this then you don't believe Darwin's theory and you are a creationist. You simple referenced claims made by people but never backed up those claims with any evidence. Even in our short time-span we have seen distinct but very similar species evolve, and species evolving to not being able to reproduce. We have also seen complex new abilities. Even if there is a lack of evidence for evolution that doesn't mean that the supernatural is the explanation and is the ultimate example if a God-of the Gaps-the-volcano-must-be-a-God-because-I-don't-understand-it reasoning. Secondly, we have genetic and fossil evidence showing species gradually evolving. We have a known natural mechanism for this, evolution that we have seen in small scale in the human time-frame, and that generates predictions we can test. We don't have any evidence there is a God so it is trumped by a known natural mechanism we actually know exists. Also the God explanation hasn't generated any falsifiable predictions that we can test any more that using God to explain weather patterns natural explanations have difficulty explaining. The best you can do is that God is doing everything in a way that exactly matches evolution for some strange reason, even though his doing this can't be directly proven, and he is omnipotent and could have done it far more quickly. So you refer to a unproven God-of-the-Gaps assertion to claim that the scientists are wrong and it was all really done by magic with no supporting evidence. Thats what your argument boils down to. I don't see how nature evolving life from a common ancestor means God has been undermined and you never justified it. I personally think it does undermine it because if nature can made the complexity in modern life then you can't use complexity as proof of design which is the #1 reason to believe in God for many, and why would an all-powerful God need such a slow and brutal process to create life? But you didn't state these arguments and just asserted evolution undermines belief in God without proper justification. In Europe 80-90% of the population belief in evolution and its simply not controversial. 95% of Americans believe in God or a higher power yet around 50% believe in some kind of evolution so evolution doesn't stop people from believing in God. What it does do is threaten people's mythologies of a global flood and life being created by God in its modern form. Also many people are uneducated and find the idea of complex things evolving as silly without actually knowing much about it. Its no surprise evolution is most controversial among the uneducated and evangelicals.
Do you think that evolution in any form exists? I.e., do you think it is possible that the diverse Galapagos finches evolved from a common ancestor. Or perhaps they were created as we see them now by an intelligent designer? So the the designer not only created life, and species... but all sub species?
Yes, you are nitpicking here. And I think your response adequately illustrates the nature of your entire response. You say that life does not imply death... ok In my experience, anything that does not die, also does not live There may be some form of life that does not die... But then again there may be a planet without gravity... there may be a committee of gods who held meetings to design the universe Lots of things that we have no evidence for may be true so... you are absolutely correct... there may be life without death We just have No reason to believe that is true Sorry Yes, and that is part of the problem... conflating the two. I was Trying to fairly state a position that I disagree with... Hate to quibble with you But Darwin did not say that In fact he said nothing about the origin of life So, to quote you.. this" reveals your utter lack of knowledge" about what Darwin said Yes Darwin DID NOT claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor Darwin observed that diverse species might well have shared common ancestors BUT he never claimed that all life shared a single ancestor Although it is a reasonable conjecture... it is not what he said Darwin was not trying to establish a religion requiring belief So Suppose I were to propose that life originated in two separate natural events rather than one... Then I would be a creationist? And you say Darwin advocated this view? I have never heard this before Please provide your evidence Dear friend I am trying to state and understand the creationist position and the implications of that position Sadly, this requires me to attempt to recapitulate arguments that I agree are flawed I am sorry that you find the attempt to understand other points of view to be so offensive Please refer to the Bible in which god gives us a detailed account of creation... which account is incompatible with the single common ancestor It was not my intention to write a book nor to prepare a peer reviewed paper In general, I would find your comments more useful if you had supplied your own fully footnoted ideas While I do not disagree with what you say... you offer no proof Given how important proof is to you,,, I find this short coming to be shocking But then again, maybe I am nitpicking
That unsupported leap is a major cause of contention. If there is insufficient evidence that evolution alone is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, that is only proof that there is insufficient evidence that evolution alone is sufficient to explain the diversity of life. It doesn’t prove that evolution is the basis of the diversity of life, it doesn’t prove that anything else played an additional or alternative role in that and it most certainly doesn’t prove any specific alternative or additional factor in the process. Disputes about evolution generally aren’t heated. Disputes about theology that use evolution as a tool (or weapon!) often are. I’ve never seen a dispute that is actually about evolution on a forum like this one.
We can stop in your video at the 10 second mark. Is anything on the screen an actual chromosome or anything else real or is it all a creation of a human. No god needed. No superior being needed. Just a little old human putting together the pieces to show a picture. Do I find nature "astounding?" Certainly. Fascinating? Certainly? UNEXPLAINABLE without some higher being? Not at all. The fact that I do not know exactly how something happened nor all of the mechanics that lead to a certain observation in any given moment in space time does not in any way imply any "design" impacted that observation. That is, unless I can show this guided hand, its actual power, actual influence, and its motivations. If there is actual evidence of this "designer" then present it. Otherwise the discussion belongs in religion, which is where it belongs.
Why don't you start by defining "intelligent design". If one carefully reads your posts, it is very clear that your "intelligent design" is just another phrase for The God of The Bible DidIt. As such, this thread belongs in Religion, not in Science.
As I see it, the only way evolution can work is if quantum physics works as theorized and new parallel universes are being created constantly. We just happen to be in one of the universes where life evolved against the odds.
Ok, I understand that you do not think evolution acts as the origin of life from non life on planet earth And maybe you think it is unlikely that evolution could take life from its simplest forms i.e. Bacteria...to humans etc. But do you entirely reject any evolution what so ever . I.e. Clearly dogs have significantly changed under human selection And, if you believe biologists, dog DNA shows that they evolved from wolves As well there are many other examples Do you entirely reject any and all impact of natural selection upon our current fauna? And What other mechanism might you propose for the observered fossil record Which shows various animals not existing, and coming into being... and having remarkable DNA and anatomical similarities to animals that preceded them. Is that not a common sense arguement that some process similar to evolution is underway?
No, I think evolution makes sense. It's just that the idea of random mutations resulting in complex structures like the kinetochore in so short a time as a billion years after the Earth was formed strikes me as unlikely,.
I basically agree, and wish that proponents of ID would provide so much detail about their theory that it could be considered as a scientific theory
Ok...I have to agree. But for the time being, it seems like all we got from a scientific perspective Maybe we will later find evidence that our life was insemminated by space aliens... it could be Or there might be some other origin of life that is far outside there our current comprehension.... That said, your legitimate critique often gets amalgamated into generic anti evolution arguemants that seek to entirely delegitimizatize evolution
The ideas put forward by proponents of intelligent design are based totally on theological principals. There is no science behind it, and the pseudo-science used to support their ideas is essentially hocus-pocus. Evolution is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity. ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity,a Supreme Being,and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all,they are more like last resorts.
I guess I wonder why supposed intelligent humans are scared shitless to accept the methodology of science? What is so wrong with accepting 'what we know', with accepting new information as our knowledge base and technology advances, accepting scientific theory? Why is this process so spooky that some must turn to mythology, to anecdotal stories, to pure fiction? And BTW...whose Gawd is the right one, the correct one, the real one, the master one? Do Americans believe that the Gawd of Islam is all knowing? Maybe, and I'm talking .0000000001% maybe, if all 4200 religions on Earth had consensus about a single Gawd and it was well documented and could actually explain in scientific process how everything on Earth we know today came about, well...
