Evolution v. Creationism: the Politics, the Science, the Debate (3 of 3)

[GnosticHumanist]

@Mogley52 said: "How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet?"

3. There are so many things retarded about this comment I'm struggling to take the ignorance in.

Of course animals in the past had organs! Why wouldn't they?? Not everything needs a cock and vagina to mate you idiot.

Are you even aware that sexual reproduction is only one kind of reproduction?

[Mogley52]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN MISUNDERSTOOD: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you cannot prove that it was made by chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the sand castle. You find that the sand castle doesn't have fingerprints. Maybe the wind wiped away the fingerprints? But, how do we know for sure there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or design? Both sides should be free to present their case!

[GnosticHumanist]

@Mogley52

4. There is no other argument that is a better indicator that the person has no idea about the basics of evolution than them claiming it is a random process.

You are clearly ignoring the role of natural selection. Have a look at those two words for a minute. SELECTION is the very OPPOSITE of CHANCE/RANDOMNESS.

You want to know who has DESIGNED us? The forces of nature and the simple concept that dome phenotypes are suited to certain environments better than others!!

[Mogley52]

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.

[GnosticHumanist]

@Mogley52

Wow, I can't believe I just read such nonsense.

1. By "kinds" you clearly mean "species", and thereby how can evolution of a common ancestor into dogs and cats be seen as so different as evolution of a common ancestor into worms and humans?

2. Are you aware of how organs have evolved? Ie: the eye starting as simple light-sensitive cell patches? Open a book on zoology and every step of every organ is explained in detail supported by paleontology.

Read a book.

[Ematched]

Thanks to science, instead of having one giant hole in our understanding of the world, we are beginning to stitch together the fabric underlying what we can see around us. In finding a new piece of information, we create new holes. Smaller, but holes nonetheless. But there is no reason to reject the theory providing an opportunity to test our understanding simply because there are questions we're still pursuing.

[ThieleM]

'Evolution has holes' is the stupidest comment that creationists make. Fishing nets also have holes in them but they seem to work just fine.

Science is about finding holes then explaining the space.

[Squee505]

that was the stupidest rattiest thing ever.....

[neoarcadezr]

evolution has holes evolution this evolution that what about intelligent design and its holes

[GnosticHumanist]

@neoarcadezr

Every model and theory in science has "holes" because that is the very nature of science, it does not pretend to know absolutely everything about the universe, plus, science has only been widespread and accepted in the last 200 years or something.

What would you like: somone who tells you as much as they know is for certain from empiricism and admits they don't know everything OR (the theist view) someone claiming they KNOW EVERYTHING because a Bronze Age book told them?

[55metalmonkey]

@GnosticHumanist I agree with your points but would like to add that the scientific method goes back to Aristotle (approx 400BC) who seems to be credited as the founder of empirical science. Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development / advancement of the scientific method. The scientific method as we currently know it dates to the Renaissance (14th-17th century) where the wisdom of the Greeks and Arabs helped Europe out of the Dark Ages.

[GnosticHumanist]

@55metalmonkey

Yes, that's why the word Renaissance means "to be born again".

Latin: re (again) + nasci (to be born)

[55metalmonkey]

@GnosticHumanist I just wanted to expand on the timeline for the history of the Scientific Method to show the process is far older and was embraced by many cultures than most people realize.

[ReligiousFiction]

Dr. Miller is right - the IDers with whom I've corresponded dearly want reason and Enlightenment to seem like a bad thing, like judgmentalism. But I wonder, if that idea takes hold, and truth seems totally subjective, how evangelicals can hope to make converts of anyone. If truth is subjective, how could anyone be convinced of any religion?

[ctvwr]

@ReligiousFiction

The great irony of postmodernism is that its strongest proponents are the creationists and apologists.

[thehumanistofnorway]

Thank you for posting this, really interesting series!