Mosques

[Jrecee]

I will never understand why many people of faith, regardless of whether they're fundamentalists or not, seem to take such issue with evolution.

*snip*

I don't have issues with evolution because I think it stands against my religion, I take issue with evolution because I consider it unscientific.

Yet you think your religion is a logical alternative? Why not one of the other many religions? Why then do people argue that their religion should be taught in school instead of just arguing that evolution shouldn't?

Belief in intelligent design has been brought to us by theology, while belief in evolution has come from science. Whether the scientists come to their conclusions by leaps of faith or not, I would still trust science more. It has brought us modern medicine, computers, and airplanes. While theology has brought us traffic jams on sunday morning.

[Dylan]

Yet you think your religion is a logical alternative? Why not one of the other many religions? Why then do people argue that their religion should be taught in school instead of just arguing that evolution shouldn't?

Evolution and common descent are not necessarily the same thing. There is certainly science for evolution, just not common descent. I should have made an effort to state that more clearly. You're also being too specific with religion, intelligent design is a much more common idea than any particular religion. I don't see anything wrong or significantly harmful with a small "alternative hypotheses of origin" chapter in a science book, considering that again common descent is in the same boat as intelligent design from a scientific standpoint of testable credibility. Besides, the kids are going to be aware of these ideas anyway. Mostly my point is that there's a double standard in this system, where common descent is considered science without empirical verification and intelligent design is not.

Belief in intelligent design has been brought to us by theology, while belief in evolution has come from science. Whether the scientists come to their conclusions by leaps of faith or not, I would still trust science more. It has brought us modern medicine, computers, and airplanes. While theology has brought us traffic jams on sunday morning.

Generalizing science isn't logical. Comparing the study of coding theory and algorithms with marine biology just because they can be considered under a massively broad category has no significant meaning. Science is a method, not a machine or entity. Not to mention that you're discounting the positive effects of religion mentioned in the study that Limewater posted. Essentially, the argument here is "well I'd rather trust source B because it gave us cars and rocket ships" (again, this is inference and referring to a non-individual concept), but that's hardly a scientific stance to take, that's simply bias. This isn't to say that bias doesn't play a monumental role in how people see things on this matter from any perspective, it's just that these ideas can be reduced to it.

[Hatta]

I don't have issues with evolution because I think it stands against my religion, I take issue with evolution because I consider it unscientific.

Then you are wrong. Everything we know about biology supports the theory of evolution.

And yet it consents that macroevolution hasn't been directly observed.

Most things in science haven't been directly observed. Inference is a powerful tool.

It claims that micro and macro evolution are equivalent, but I don't see what this claim is based on.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. FWIW, nature has no concept of speciation, so it's not necessary to define a special process (macroevolution) to explain it.

-snip a bunch of argument from incredulity-

By the way, does anyone have any good books on these subjects? I'm already looking at A Brief History of Time and The Origin of Species, are there any other good ones?

The former has nothing to do with evolution. The latter is for historical reading only. Darwin was wrong about a good many things, was completely ignorant of genetics, and there was no fossil record. Don't look to Darwin for a good explanation of modern genetics.

Read this book. It's not easy reading, but if you've had a college biology course you should be able to understand it fine.

[Hatta]

Evolution and common descent are not necessarily the same thing.

They are. Common ancestry is a central tenet of the theory of evolution.

You're also being too specific with religion, intelligent design is a much more common idea than any particular religion.

Every proponent of intelligent design is a christian. Intelligent design is nothing more than religion disguised as science. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't see anything wrong or significantly harmful with a small "alternative hypotheses of origin" chapter in a science book,

Neither do I. If we had an alternative hypothesis that was based on science it would be totally appropriate.

considering that again common descent is in the same boat as intelligent design from a scientific standpoint of testable credibility.

Sure if you wish to discount the entire field of phylogenetics.

Mostly my point is that there's a double standard in this system, where common descent is considered science without empirical verification and intelligent design is not.

If your school system hasn't taught you about the mountain of evidence we have in favor of evolution, that's a problem.

[Dylan]

I hate to bow out after my main arguments have been challenged, but I feel like I need to do more research on the matter before I can address what you're claiming.

Still looking for books on evolution, astrophysics, and psychology (I have my eye on the one that was mentioned earlier). I'm trying to get together a good reading list before I go to college.

Edit: Actually I'll just make a separate thread for that.

[dsheinem]

This is a list of some books on creation vs evolution.
http://shopping.drdino.com/category-exe ... _Reference

This is a link to various essays about the creation science view.
http://www.drdino.com/category/type/article/

Correction: These are lists of books suggested BY a pro-creationism website, so I am sure they will have objective perspectives.

Creation science is a god damn oxymoron.

Oh thank you so much for your very objective opinion

I never claimed to be objective, but you presented those links without disclosing the important politics that inform those sources.

Any scientist who claims they are a creation scientist is not really a scientist. They approach their research and experimentation as an opportunity to prove a certain set of religious beliefs, not as a way to further scientific knowledge. I am not pretending that all science is objective, but good science at least has a pretense of objectivity and aims for such. Creation scientists throw that pretense out the door on day one.

I am very familiar with quacks like Hovind and Ham, and recommending either of them as a way to understand something about evolution or "counter-evolution" is misguided. There are good critiques of Darwin, but they do not come from Creationism, they come from the same place that evolution theory itself comes from: good science.

[Chickensuit]

Well, I sure made no pretense of where I was coming from by sending him to Creation Science Evangelisms website. So I feel like there was no CORRECTION of my post needed (you just wanted to vent). He said he wanted both sides, I can only give him one, from my perspective. He's getting plenty of other perspectives so I'm not sure what your so worried about. I mean he's probably being taught your evolution religion in the public indoctrination center where he goes to school anyways.

I believe that years from now the evolution THEORY will be proven to be the greatest hoax ever propagated.

And look, evolution is JUST a theory, but they teach it as BIBLE truth (just ask any kindergartner "when did dinosaurs live?", and watch their eyes glaze over as they say "millions and millions of years ago").

The fact is that you weren't there millions and millions of years ago, and I wasn't there 6,000+ years ago at creation, and you cannot give me ANY empirical, scientific evidence either way. A leap to either conclusion is a leap of FAITH.

And I will not make any pretense where I am coming from, I believe by faith the Bible and am a follower of Christ.

[dsheinem]

And I will not make any pretense where I am coming from, I believe by faith the Bible and am a follower of Christ.

I am going to move my discussion and yours to the "Mosques" thread because really that is probably where it belongs at this point. We are no longer helping him out...

[dsheinem]

Well, I sure made no pretense of where I was coming from by sending him to Creation Science Evangelisms website. So I feel like there was no CORRECTION of my post needed (you just wanted to vent). He said he wanted both sides, I can only give him one, from my perspective. He's getting plenty of other perspectives so I'm not sure what your so worried about. I mean he's probably being taught your evolution religion in the public indoctrination center where he goes to school anyways.

I believe that years from now the evolution THEORY will be proven to be the greatest hoax ever propagated.

And look, evolution is JUST a theory, but they teach it as BIBLE truth (just ask any kindergartner "when did dinosaurs live?", and watch their eyes glaze over as they say "millions and millions of years ago").

The fact is that you weren't there millions and millions of years ago, and I wasn't there 6,000+ years ago at creation, and you cannot give me ANY empirical, scientific evidence either way. A leap to either conclusion is a leap of FAITH.

And I will not make any pretense where I am coming from, I believe by faith the Bible and am a follower of Christ.

There's so much wrong with this post that I'm not even sure where to start.

Claiming that evolution theory is "evolution religion" is like saying the theory of gravity is "gravity religion" or the theory of the water cycle is "evaporation religion." No one is arguing that these things are "theories," but they are accepted theories because there IS empirical evidence to support them.

No, I was not "there" when dinosaurs roamed the earth - no humans were. How do I know that? Because of the empirical fossil record. Because of the empirical methods we use to date fossils.

I don't mean to disparage your beliefs - you are certainly welcome to believe whatever your heart so well pleases. But when you try to claim that those beliefs are justified on scientific grounds OR that science is just simply a belief system like religion, I feel obligated to show the lunacy of those claims.

[vash23n]

Don't forget, natural selection was just one situation that led to evolution. Genetic mutations were even bigger catalysts. Perhaps one of the most interesting theories is that of Paedogenesis. I am sure everyone knows what this is, but for those who may not, it is when an organism - by strange mutation or survival mechanism - is able to reproduce before becoming physically mature. This is something that has been observed in some species and may not seem to relate to evolution at first. There are scientists, however, who have looked at the amazing similarities between the skeletons of immature monkeys and humans and have theorized that Paedogenesis could serve as an appropriate model explaining human evolution. A couple of examples: monkeys are upright when they are born, they have significantly less hair, their skulls are very similar to a humans (lacking the sloping face). There are plenty of more comparisons, but I am not in school anymore and don't feel like looking for my notes.

Anyhoo, if a group of monkeys was born with a genetic mutation that prevented their physical appearance from maturing, it could be surmised that they may have been cast out of their group (as happens when animals in the wild with deformities as parents decide not to waste resources that can be used on healthy offspring). As the new population was forced to adapt to a new environment, their physical appearance changed over generations, as did their lifestyle, until their genes had become so different from their original ancestors that they could no longer be considered the same species. I am not talking about homo sapiens sapiens or anything, but if you look at early man (artists conceptions and skeletal remains), it is easier to see this as a possibility. Again, research it if you are interested - just to warn you, Wikipeadia does not have much info on the subject so you might have to dig deeper.

EDIT: I should say that I am just listing another theory considered by scientists who study evolution and not necessarily a theory I hold 100% true. I feel like most of the anti-evolution stuff I have been reading here is comprised of the topical, story book nonsense you find in brochures - Charles Darwin invented evolution with his theory that humans came from monkeys. There are many theories of evolution (not all involving one supreme common ancestor by the way), many systems of organizing species, and many ideas of how evolution came about (how long, what came from what, etc.).