I think that’s proof that evolution is bullshit.
while I agree with you, please dont start bashing people and calling their belief’s stupid. If we want people to be “open” to different views, we have to accept views other than our own.
Bigdude, who are you talking to?
The truth is, we’re all De-Vo.
edit: ha! i just noticed that you were commenting on a different post. i thought you we’re referring to neck’s appendix post… oh well.
actually, it does the exact opposite. evolution isn’t a predestined path toward efficiency… it arises out of random mutations. as a result, it produces a variety of organs/appendages that function poorly, or have no use at all. if a divine being was responsible for designing plants/animals, why would he create crappy parts that have no use, or remain a hindrance to the organism… and often fade away?
stephen j. gould’s whole natural history series is based upon this idea. he focuses on those abnormalities that could only arise if the process was detached from a designer. his writing is very accesible… definitely check it out.
btw, bigdude… i agree. my remark was mainly for amusement. i didn’t actually expect that we would actually have any creationists on the board. my bad.
one of my most interesting classes ever was this class last semester that was all about representation and the way culture shapes our lives… but the last 3 weeks of class we talked about creationism and how all it does is try to ruin science and how narrow minded creationists are when given anything that proves their theory wrong (sorry if any of you are…). but my teacher got so bent out of shape about creationism and everything. damn that was interesting and led to some good arguments when anyone said any opposing thoughts.
On a personal note, ( I never try to share my religious beliefs) I am actually agnostic. But, just because I think my viewpoint is correct, I WILL NOT call someone else’s views “stupid” or “idiotic” or anything along those lines. Just a few hundred years ago, I would be killed for going against the Puritan establishment. We created a nation for ALL religious views, not just your own, so try to keep that in mind. You can argue against one another is fine, but no calling silly names, it doesnt prove anything. I am NOT a creationist, but I will stand up for someone else holding a different point of view, because thats what makes the world unique.
^ you’re an egg nog stick?
also, we have freedom of speech. our freedom of speech protects our right to be close-minded about whatever we want. and tell everyone on the internet about it.
just more evidence to teach evolution. I totally agree with evolution but actually in science u can’t actually prove a theory. you can disprove things and come up with a theory and support it with evidence, but it is impossible to determine if wether in the future new evidence could come into to disprove the theory. obviously you can prove minor things like, I can prove that if I dropped a two ton anvil on my foot it would hurt.
I Totally agree with the theory of evolution but I am just following scientific law.
I’m not sure if I agree that philosophy is the foundation of all science since I don’t buy that philosophy IS a science, but I understand your point. The first thinkers and scientists were philosophers.
the main difference between science and philosophy is that philosophy tells us what more than likely exists but we have no proof of, and science is basically philosophy with physical evidence.
i don’t buy that the first scientists were philosophers… or that philosophy is a prerequisite for science. neandrathal man made tools right? well, it took science to make those tools… testing materials for durability, discovering effective ways utilize and manipulate those tools, and predicting their success. he wasn’t trying to understand his reason for being… he just wanted to kill some animals.
science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
scientific method:
correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.
philosophers have used the scientific method for centuries as a way of testing all their epistemologies and metaphysics. descartes was a mathematician, and he came up with mathematic proofs for the existence of God (even though they are logically fallacious). Newton heavily influenced philosophy. Aristotle came up with the idea of the atom. So, philosophy is a foundation for science in that it uses reason and observation in order to find out about the world and how it works, much like science uses reason and observation to find out about the world. Science is essentially an extension of rational and empirical philosophy. thats how i see it.
as far as evolution goes, it has to be the only true explanation for existence. its all about ockham’s razor. there is no reason to posit a hypothesis, such as a god created the world, when there is no evidence to support it, when there is a theory, based on empirical evidence, that successfully explains and proves the theory. simply put, there is no reason to say that god created the world when there is no evidence for it, and there is evidence for evolution. creationism is beyond reason.
lets just go to the definition…
philosophy: pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
edit: i didn’t think this topic would cause so much debate… a poll might be interesting.
I agree with this.
But can’t a person believe that God or some divine power created the world AND believe in evolution? kind of hybridize evolution with creationism since the details (and some larger pieces of the theory, such as exactly how life began) are not pinned down? I know that’s not a new idea.
I don’t mean this as a smart-ass question…but do you guys think everything can be explained w/reason anyway?
Right on, Bigdude. Name calling can reduce an intelligent conversation to crap.
I think this is sort of like the “intelligent design” theory. I don’t know the details but I think it’s based on the idea that God, or a whatever creative force they are talking about, designed life in such a way that it would evolve.
I think it’s also good to point out that there are still developements in scence that shed new light and doubt into the nature of matter and reality that are redefining our awareness of what is “science” and what is “religion”. Branches of science like Quantum Mechanics are still relatively new, and people in these fields are literally arguing over and redefining fundamental philosophical and scientific conepts all the time.
I think some things, like Physics, are based on assumtions based on sensory experiences (matter = anything that has mass, takes up space) that don’t reflect the true nature of reality. When you look at matter on a subatomic scale, people start discover that a lot of scientific facts about, allthough practical in everyday human experience, are as fallacious as Descartes’ reasoning that “proves” the existence of God.
intelligent design is a wolf in sheep’s clothing (simply creationism in a new package).
The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[30] All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.[31] Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign.
interestingly, the vatican newpaper recently denounced intelligent design as “unsceintific” while asserting that catholic teaching is, in fact, compatible with evolution.
My brain hurts.
I agree with you that you do have the freedom of speech. However, to call someone’s belief’s “stupid” and that “they are ignorant” does not prove anything to your cause. Whenever you belittle someone else, you belittle yourself and your cause because no one wants to take you seriously afterwards.
I’m out of this thread.
you should read some david hume, or go to wikipedia and check him out. he pretty much demolished the intelligent design argument before it became intelligent design, or even evolution came into play. hes all about what we can or cant know from sensory experience, that we have no a priori knowledge (knowledge that we have ever since we existed). i would have to check up on it, but hume says that we cant posit some sort of cosmic designer since there is no evidence in all of existence for it. and also , because of constant conjunction of events (which is a principle that states that we know that an event causes another event because we see it happen over and over again, like a billiard ball hitting another ball: we know that when we hit a ball with another ball, the ball will move the other ball) we cannot know with any certainty that God created the world, because we have no other examples of it ever happening. mainly tho, since there is no evidence in existence that a God (at least in the Judeo Christian sense) or cosmic designer created the world, we cannot rationally state that God created the world, either through evolution or some other means.
but you can believe whatever you want. 
All I have to say is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism… and that I thought creationism had T&A… but wait theres more… I do agree with tolerance for others beliefs and do try to be like that but I sure don’t want to see ID taught in schools… zoot seems to have a pretty good handle on this stuff. When I have more time I’ll read thru the thread…