I'm going to try something here. I'm going to explain evolution, and furthermore I am going to try and do it without resorting to name calling which happens A LOT on these arguments. I believe most Christians, at heart, are good people and furthermore I feel sorry for the ones that get caught up in the propaganda that's been thrown at them.
[bold]1: Critical Thinking.[/bold]
Critical thinking is the most important skill any modern human can learn. It is the skill that is fundamentally taught in universities around the globe. Take myself. I'm a nurse. Now, it is impossible for me to learn everything in the 3 years of my degree, to know everything a nurse needs to. Further, with new research, I have to constantly update my knowledge. In fact, I am required by law to continually self improve my skills as a nurse. Doctors (like my sister in law) even more so.
But what is critical thinking (CT)? CT is the ability to find, and judge evidence. It is to look at 'evidence' and it's source and to rate it based on merit. Take for example the following, fictional pieces.
* A scientist, working for the tabbaco industry, that says smoking doesn't kill you.
* A scientist publishing government paid research saying smoking does kill you.
* A person in the pub saying his dad smoked until he was 94, therefore smoking is harmless.
What would be the most reliable research? In much the same way lawyers have to have 'credible' witnesses, CT teaches us to have credible research.
[bold]2: Science[/bold]
Flowing on from CT, we hit science. Science is ONLY science if it can be based in observable, testable, repeatable experimentation. Furthermore, in science, nothing is set in stone, even the 'laws' of physics. In science, most methodolgy works as follows:
* Formulate a hypothesis. Eg "Dropping a stone will make it fall to the ground"
* Test: "Drop the rock to the ground"
* Theorise: "Why did the rock drop to the ground."
For any scientific hypothesis to fail, just takes 1 result. If, for example, I were to drop a rock and it floated in the air, the theory of gravity would have to be re-written or thrown out.
In science, the first two sections, that of Hypothesis and Test, are seldom argued against. Hypothesis is just a question, and pointless to argue, except for the basis of funding. The methodology of the test is very important. How many numbers? Was it a double blind test? Did you use adequate testing materials? Could you have contaminated the test? This is all part of the critical thinking, and this is how scientists get judged. They are judged, or reviewed, by other scientists in peer reviewed journals. There are literally thousands of journals on many topics.
The part of the theory, however, often does get argued. This is indeed the driving force behind science. You study claimed, theorised, that the reason the rock fell was due to gravity. I claim that it was thrown down. I now conduct research to show that gravity doesn't exist and it was thrown.
The example is obviously simplistic, but you should get the idea. Take cancer research. Research A might find a causal link between chocolate and breast cancer, research B might dispute this, look at the sugar used in the chocolate and show it was the driving force. (Again, fictional example)
The point is, around the world 24/7 this style of scientific research and argument goes on, and its the reason why we have all our 'modern' luxuries, health care, advanced science, and generally everything we do and exist with.
[bold]3: Theory of evolution:[/bold]
Firstly what the theory of evolution (ToEv) isn't. ToEv is not chance. It is not luck and it is not random. I've heard this a lot and I want it very clear that none of these things are true.
In very simplistic terms, ToEv can be put into 3 joined points.
*Reproduction
*Mutation
*Natural Selection (Or 'survival of the fittest')
We know that reproduction occurs, no-one argues that point. We also know mutations occur and that natural selection occurs. All 3 of these facts are in the 'testing' phase as above from the science section. But what are they?
Reproduction. To have offspring, I'm sure everyone knows this.
Mutation is the random changing of behaviour or physical form due to internal or external factors. This could mean anything from growing an extra finger, to having slightly faster running speed, a bigger brain, etc.
Natural Selection is the part that Charles Darwin through into the mix to form ToEv. Natural Selection is the understanding that when a mutation occurs that advances the specices, over time that mutation will become the normal and dominant strand.
Put simply, Natural Selection says that if 2 people are running for food and 1 is faster, the faster will win and eat, and the slower will lose and perish. This is far more reaching however, from better camouflage, faster speed, better eyesight, more prolific reproducer, anything you care to name.
The Theory of Evolution was the theory put forward to explain the implications of these 3 facts. The theory states that, with time, simple systems can become complex. In mathematics, this is called iteration indexing, and is what is behind such complex maths as fractals, among others. Back to ToEv, Darwin realised that we have complex life around us. Humans trees birds fish snakes, what have you. Before ToEv the only explanation for these was that a higher power put us here (in our current forms). Darwin, with the use of evolution, showed a way that was possible to explain both what we see currently on earth (mammals etc) along with what was on earth (dinosaurs) and even what was/could have been many years ago, and how they were linked.
It was a breakthrough. The theory explained how, out of 3 simple postulations (reproduction, mutation, natural selection) you can end up with incredibly vast, complex forms.
Since Darwin, we have seen many, many, many cases of Evolution. We've seen it in the animals and crops we've bred over the thousands of years of farming, in he food we eat, in our families with genetic diseases. There was a case where documentary crews recorded, over a large period of time, birds learn to drink blood during a drought by pecking other animals. (I believe it was the Mocking Birds of the Galapogus). With the mapping of the human genome, we've moved evolution from 'natural selection' to the understanding of genetics, as one is intrinsically linked to the other. The theory of evolution is still a theory, just as the theory of gravity is a theory.
Some scientists argue against evolution. Most of these arguments are based on complex components, such as the eye, and how the jump from no sight, to sight is too high. However these scientists are in the minority, they are often supported by people with alteria motives (ie religious groups) and sometimes use, rather loose, credentials, to label themselves scientists. All of which relates to critical thinking, see part 1.
[bold]4: Evolution and Intelligent Design[/bold]
Evolution is a theory of science. It is a scientific theory based on observable, testable facts. Intelligent Design is a spiritual theory. The two are vastly different. Evolution can be argued, and there SHOULD be discussion about views against it from a SCIENTIFIC stance, there is no question to that.
Intelligent Design, however, is not a scientific stance. It has no testable process, it has no methodology and it is not a science. If we are to teach ID as a science, then we should teach Dreamtime stories of the Aboriginal people of Australia as science as well.
Furthermore, evolution does not negate a Creator (God). I'm an atheist, however a friend of mine, a devout Christian and intelligent, hard working, doctor, argues that in his view evolution is proof of God. He argues "what better way of god to work than to set up the dominoes, push em at one end and watch them spread in the magic of evolution."
Infact, there are many Christians, scientists and laymen, who disagree with ID, and it's unfortunate for those people that the ID arguements are drowning out their view.
Bill O'Reily asked "Why can't we say there's an alternative view and that some people say God (higher power) was an intelligent designer." The reason is because it's not teaching science. Teaching ID as a counter part to evolution undermines science. Let me say that again.
[bold]Teaching ID as a counter part to evolution undermines science. [/bold]
The reason for this, is science is very strict over what it is. Science must be observable, testable, and repeatable. If it fails in any of these three, it cannot be a science. If we are to teach ID as an argument or alternative to ToEv, we lessen the worth of science to a speculation. Students need to fundamentally learn what a science is and what it isn't. Arguing against evolution with science is good, arguing against it with spirituality is not.
I am sure to be flooded with arguments about this, and I don't claim to be an expert. I wrote this to try and give a clear headed, full answer to the people defending ID because, to be honest, I don't believe they fully understood what 'theory' means in a scientific sense.
PS: The reason I used ToEv, is because TOE is a scientific acronym for theory of everything.
Comments
1 - 11 of 11
-
all human reasoning.
I have 2 comments. 1. your explanation of natural selection is no more than survival of the fittest. 2. If in fact we evolved, how come there are still apes ? and where is my sixth finger? -
-
Well obviously I took a cut down version of it. I'm not going to explain or attempt to, decades, heck centuries, of research and evidence in 2 pages.
1: Natural selection, survival of the fittest, is more or less the same thing. Furthermore, evolution doesn't precluded lesser species, just that the greater species will evolve.
Thing of it this way; Lions eat zebras, so why do we still have zebras? Just because lions are dominant over zebras doesn't mean zebras will become extinct. As for why are there still apes, current research suggests that humans and apes are more cousins, as in we are both descended from a distant relative.
I tried not to be offensive in my post, which was written for another use, but I posted it on here as I thought it might be interesting. What scares me though is that I fear that our collective intelligence is going backwards. Religion (any of them) shouldn't and can't compare to physical evidence, and the fact that they are trying to. Now I understand how Galileo felt. -
-
Religion compare to evidence ?
j-just a couple of thoughts.when you consider the vastness of the universe, or when you consider a few things independently,for example the humain brain, the eye, water, the position of the earth in relation to the sun, the beginning point of amino acids, and then you compare the things we know (for a fact)as opposed to theories, i'll believe in intelligent design 100% of the time, but i will give you this. religion has done more harm to the concept of God than all of the theories against belief in God combined. Evolution is nothing more than another religion, if you will, a belief system.It's god is darwinism.as for religion, the wars fought in the name of religion,or because one religion feels it is right and another is wrong, therefore they kill each other over it- well, give me a break. and the fact that so many religions teach, on the one hand that God is love, and on the other hand, that if a person doesn't believe in him or his son, Jesus, that God will 'burn them forever and ever in a place called hell'- give me a bigger break. I can honestly understand why so many people don't believe in inteligent design, or God, or want anything to do with religion, but I am not going to blame God or disbelieve in him because of religion and it's foolish reasonings.neither will i believe in any religion that misrepresents God, ie.. Darwinism.I do, however respect your right to your own opinion.lets not, as religion does, have a 'war' lets be friends. -
-
Question:
I know it's been a while since your original comment, but I felt compelled to ask. You say you don't believe the "burn in hell" part of god. I want to know, as a religious person, how you choose what you do and do not believe in the bible.
Like, for instance, I hear a lot of religious people these days say that the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally. But how do we know that? The bible makes it very clear on some of the punishments we should invoke, but we don't today in modern society.
My point is, if you believe in the bible, and believe in the word of God, how can you then 'chop shop' it to suit you personally. I believe this, but not this. That sounds right that doesn't.
-
-
The reasons i don't believe in a hell-God are many. first of all, the bible doesn't teach it, it's a man-made doctrine by men in religious power who wanted to scare people into the churches. you seem to be a person with thinking ability, so i will ask you this. if you read the bible and it told you that God was love, a righteous God, a God of wisdom, a God who forgives sins, all sins, a God who would rather have mercy than sacrifice. a father who lives in heaven and has all the best qualities of an earthly father, only always consistent, kind, giving, loving, giving his children everything needed for life, but most of all, a God of perfect JUSTICE. j- do you think a just God would take one of his children and burn thwm in hell forever and ever and ever for all eternity because they would,nt accept his free gift of forgivness of sins given by Jesus Christ's death? does that sound like love to you? or justice? or any of the qualities the bible says he has? a persons life is very, very short compared to a time of eternity. so with christiandom's logic of hell, a person burns for all eternity in a hell-hole of fire for a few years of sinning, what's wrong with that picture? there are also many scriptures that teach the truth about HELL. the bible was not written in english, it was written by Jews in Hebrew, Greek or Arimaic. hell is the english word for the Greek word Hades, hell is the english word from the hebrew word sheol. they both mean the same thing- GRAVE. a person dies and is burried in a grave. the bible book of ezekiel 18:4 says the soul that is sinning will die. but christians teach that we have an immortal soul and that's how we can burn in hell forever. another man-made lie about God. to tell you the truth, j- if thats the way that God is, i would'nt want to worship him, but i know him the way he really is, and maybe most of the world believes in a merciless, horror story type God, but i don't. He's exactly what the bible says he is--LOVE.
-
-
Wait, what?
There's a logical flaw here, and a realistic flaw. I'll address in reverse order.
Hell is mentioned, albeit very vaguely in the bible.
Matthew 18:8-9
If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mark 9:43-48
... into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Luke 16:22-24
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
--------------------
One of the problems with the bible, putting aside faith for a minute, is what is literal. Who says "oh this bit is literal and this bit is interpreted"? Who has that power? Are these above statements talking about a literal hell? With translation after translation, interpretation, and 'chinese whispers'... who knows what the original context was.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Logical Flaw:
God is love and forgiving.
Forgiving... means you you can do bad.
Now.. 2 options exist. You either repent or you don't
Those that do, we are told go to heaven.
Those that don't....
See here's the problem. Those that don't repent. Whether they go to hell, or just 'die', doesn't matter. They are being 'punished' eternally for finite crimes. Your punishment for not whorshiping god, not believing in him (Despite any actions you may do in life) is to eternally die (using your approach). And you say that's a god of love?
I don't believe in god. But at the same time, I am a nurse and I believe spend my life in a good way. I live life to the laws of man, I don't speed, never had a parking ticket. Yet if I die, I die and not 'live eternally'... because a little sadist in heaven is upset?
----------------------------------------------------------
Now for a different take.
God is a bully. Go read virtually any random part of the bible, especially the Old Testament. God was a manic germicidal bastard that makes Hitler look nice. Wiping out cities, mass murder, plagues... heck the Noah's Ark flood wiped out the entire world bar a few (taken literally).
Of course, you could argue that it's not meant literally. That's fine, but... why than is it a holy book? Why do you believe? We don't believe in other 'fables'. We don't believe in the Arabian Nights or Red Riding Hood. Why the Bible?
Think about it for a minute. We have a book, written, translated and copied, edited and so on for a good thousand years. Full of inconsistencies, contraditions, and, frankly, violence and hatred. There's rape and mass murder, war, famine, plagues, parricide... There is some good stuff, and there are some parts of the bible that do have good moral teachings, but it's FAR from all of it.
So.. why believe? We have no proof of God. Fine, it's believe, but you'd think after all this time there'd be something concrete. We have these contradictions and errors, which get brushed aside, and we have the horror of the bible, the "holy" book, the "book of love", of a "loving" god.
And finally... look at all the shit done in the name of god.
If I had any wish in this world, it'd be to remove religion from the world. -
-
Hello, my friend, j
First of all-whoah!!! For your information, you, my friend, have already been forgiven . remember a guy by the name of Jesus? he died for the whole world's sins. 1john 2:2-and he himself(Jesus)is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.and if your dead- your still covered, Rom. the wages of sin is DEATH. when a person is dead, there sin is paid for by the fact they died. Eternal torment is NOT taught by God or Jesus, but by religious leaders who don't know what their talking about. There is an explaination for every single scripture christiandom uses to teach hell-fire. Believe it or not, j YOU also will one day live forever, everyone will, it's just a matter of when. The flood--- every thought in the mind of man was only bad all the time, the world was filled with violence. They will all be brought back to life and be taught the truth in love, Everything in the bible is the truth, but Jesus only taught in parables because the Jews didn't believe him anyway, so the truth was hidden from them.Yes God has had many wars with different people throughout history, people who were burning their children alive in fire to their false gods in order to have a good crop the next year, or because they were raping everyone who came to their village, including little children. The bible wasn't written by one guy in a single sit down, it was written by about 40 men over a thousand years or so. I do agree with you about removing religion from the world, as a matter of fact, God is going to do exactly that, and then their will only be truth left. Why do I believe? it's called faith. -
-
I feel our debate is over.
The problem atheists like myself confront when arguing against religion is it is just that, religion. If we were different political parties, I could show you why my opinion has merits one two and three, and we might not agree, but we'd understand each other.
I will never, until the day I die a mortal death and become worm food, understand the need, want, desire, requirement, for people to believe in something they cannot see, touch or have proof over. Be it a Christian god, ghosts, "auras", voodoo mystic powers or any other host of non scientific provable things.
And those that believe, I'm afraid, are likely to never see the scientific fallacy in their beliefs. It's belief, because it's belief in the face of the 'burden' of proof.
The only thing I ask, for the good of the world, Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Ba'hai and so on, is that you people that do believe in a God, no matter which one, is that you stop the hatred in their name.
-
-
-
-
jgrayson-au
-
-
Rebutle
1: Religion Vs God:
On this point I am in agreement. Human's abuse of religion (in any form) has nothing to do on a God (spirit, higher power, etc). That is, a war carried out in God's name, is not an indictment on God, but on humans/religion.
2: "Evolution is nothing more than another religion". I totally disagree here. Evolution does NOT preclude spirituality. Evolution is a testable science. We can witness, see, observe, create and modify evolution. We CANNOT see God, cannot test his (her/it) existence and cannot put it to scientific tests. This is the heart of the argument and the heart of the outrage over Intelligent Design. ID doesn't just ask that we treat it as an alternative, but by calling itself a science, it belittles science as a whole.
It is in this point that I want to make as clear as I can. You can believe in God. You can believe in Budda, or Muhammad or Yowie or who/which/whatever spiritual entities you wish. That is your RIGHT and I respect your choice to do so. That is what being a secular, free society provides.
HOWEVER. Science is not religion, and religion is not science. Science HAS to be testable observable fact. This is why so many, religious or not, groups were fighting against ID.
Evolution doesn't misrepresent God. It doesn't talk about God, unless you take literal believe in the bible. If you do that (literal believe) then you should consider a whole lot more. (Contradictions, original text, translations etc).
-
-
Furthermore, this is a direct quote from the National Academy of Sciences:
"Studies in evolutionary biology have led to the conclusion that human beings arose from ancestral primates. This association was hotly debated among scientists in Darwin's day. But today there is no significant scientific doubt about the close evolutionary relationships among all primates, including humans.
Many of the most important advances in paleontology over the past century relate to the evolutionary history of humans. Not one but many connecting links—intermediate between and along various branches of the human family tree—have been found as fossils. These linking fossils occur in geological deposits of intermediate age. They document the time and rate at which primate and human evolution occurred.
Scientists have unearthed thousands of fossil specimens representing members of the human family. A great number of these cannot be assigned to the modem human species, Homo sapiens. Most of these specimens have been well dated, often by means of radiometric techniques. They reveal a well-branched tree, parts of which trace a general evolutionary sequence leading from ape-like forms to modem humans."
-
-
Adding your comment:
1 - 11 of 11
