• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The fact that humans develop primitive gills as embryos kinda sealed the deal for me.

chromosome 2 did it for me:
why the fuck would we have vestigial ape telomeres and a vestigal ape centromere?



The linked author admits his own ignorance, and he is right to believe that we cannot infer that God exists from ignorance. But this sword cuts both ways, and neither can he infer that his own metaphysical assumptions are true. For all he knows, increased knowledge of the physical world may increase the improbability of abiogenisis and any form of macro evolution.

I dont agree with the "nobody knows...therefore its 50:50 at this point". His "admitted ignorance" is related to the flaws in calculating odds for something that doesnt have to be as particular of a structure as some people think. The "ignorance" is referring to how some people go off making calculations with the assumption that life had to evolve in one shot from a very particular 4 nucleotide DNA (or RNA) code. Calculating the odds of one person winning the lottery is a lot different than calculating the odds that SOMEBODY wins the lottery.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html said:
For in fact, his calculation makes a variety of assumptions which negate the use of this number for that purpose: first, for the first life we want to examine the minimum self-replicating protein, not the "medium" one; second, this only gives us the number of different arrangements, and billions upon billions of those arrangements could be viable self-replicators, not just one of them; third, he presumes a four-nucleotide DNA code, even when there is no reason why life had to be coded that way (there are other coding systems known in nature, and scientists are inventing new life forms based on others, cf. op. cit. n. 1a), and alien life may exist which is coded with a different four nucleotides, or more or less than four, and so on, so that the odds of life forming cannot be derived from the expectation that ours is the only possible molecular arrangement; and fourth, this is just the number of arrangements of coding nucleotides in one gene, but for all we know life began much simpler than this, and later developed a coding system through symbiosis and natural selection. That last point is particularly important, since all that is needed to get life going is anything that replicates, and four-bit coded DNA is not the only feasible molecule that might do that--a much simpler RNA code could have been the starting point [1b].

all these statistics about 747's arising from nowhere are inherently flawed. they make assumptions about 747's arising all at once and they make assumptions about the odds of a "particular 747" (rather than the many possible life forms that could of happened).

Owl said:
And this points to one of the limits of science. Science, like religion, does not examine its own assumptions, and, as the author makes clear, it's these assumptions that will shape how one answers the question of origins. Philosophy is the discipline devoted to the critical examination of assumptions, and so the question of origins ultimately lies within the domain of philosophy.

the only limit to science is that it lacks the component simplicity of math and is more ambiguous than pure logic. That isn't to say that we dont make mistakes with science (we do). What it says is that the method of science is pretty high up there on methods that lead to human knowledge.

Can you really deny that in this very moment you are experiencing something? No. Experiences are the foundation of knowledge. In the sense that when I say something like: "Owl has a cat", we can investigate such a prediction by gathering experiences that either confirm or deny such a statement. This is why one persons experience of the paranormal doesnt mean much against science. Science represents MANY "experiences" where there is repeatability and convergence on the idea that there is no paranormal.

the assumption: experiences are real (there is no reason to believe in a cartesian demon), is an assumption most sane people are pretty comfortable with.

If we are really going to question the "assumptions of science" and the "method" of science, then the following lays it out in plain sight:

Science has been CONVERGING and becoming more consistent in its findings in the past 1000 years. Religion on the hand has only been DIVERGING. What does this tell you?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The fact that humans develop primitive gills as embryos kinda sealed the deal for me.

chromosome 2 did it for me:
why the fuck would we have vestigial ape telomeres and a vestigal ape centromere?

Things like that have led me to believe natural selection has more teeth than religion seems willing to allow sometimes... There's also things like the optic nerve attaching directly in a few places, where in many others it attaches in a backwards/awkward way -- much more likely a holdover from random mutation, just like we see awkward practices left in business processes nowadays that should really be redesigned for efficiency now that the reasons that the original process evolved have changed.

Calculating the odds of one person winning the lottery is a lot different than calculating the odds that SOMEBODY wins the lottery.

Yup, that sort of statistical flub seems pretty common in these discussions.

Can you really deny that in this very moment you are experiencing something? No. Experiences are the foundation of knowledge.

I find it amazing that the worst conflicts I have had with people in my life involve whether they're operating from a set of assumptions about what the world SHOULD be like or whether they're the sort that draws their sense of reality from repeated experience and corrects ideas that consistently do not conform to their original expectations.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The linked author admits his own ignorance, and he is right to believe that we cannot infer that God exists from ignorance. But this sword cuts both ways, and neither can he infer that his own metaphysical assumptions are true. .

We cannot know that God does exist, but we also cannot know that he does not exist. Therefore we infer that God exists.

We cannot know that purple, 5000 lb elephants exist in another galaxy, but we also cannot know that they do exist. Therefore we infer that they do exist.

We cannot know that dragons do not exist somewhere, but we also cannot know that they do exist. Therefore we infer that they do exist.

Remember, as our wise religious philosophers shall teach us, when in doubt whether a particular entity exists or not, always believe that it does exist, just to be safe.

Moreover, I do not see why we have any doubt whatsoever about the existence of any of those things. We cannot deductively prove that those things do not exist, but our inductive and abductive reasoning clearly shows that they do not exist. The last two cannot exist because the conditions they require are incompatible with the living conditions provided by the universe. (For instance, 2000 lb purple elephants do not exist on Earth and in order to exist they require similar living conditions as they would on Earth. Such conditions could not be found anywhere).

Belief in God is not alogical because it is cannot be refuted, it is illogical because it can be refuted and reasonableness exhorts us to reject theism for the same reason we must reject the belief in fairies, dragons, gremlins, Santa Claus, or whatever other fantasy that our minds may conjure about what strange things may exist in the broad universe of ours!

Science, like religion, does not examine its own assumptions, and, as the author makes clear, it's these assumptions that will shape how one answers the question of origins. Philosophy is the discipline devoted to the critical examination of assumptions, and so the question of origins ultimately lies within the domain of philosophy..

Science does not examine its own assumptions as critically as philosophy does, however, the assumptions of science are founded on observations of the external world. Science is dedicated to an empirical investigation of the external world. By assumptions, I mean the premises of the argument. Whatever doctrine science holds as true, the premises for the argument supporting the doctrine are founded on what can be observed empirically in the external world. Such observations are subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

The 'assumptions' of religions come from the hearsay of the madmen who heard voices in the sky.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
We cannot know that God does exist, but we also cannot know that he does not exist. Therefore we infer that God exists.

We cannot know that purple, 5000 lb elephants exist in another galaxy, but we also cannot know that they do exist. Therefore we infer that they do exist.

We cannot know that dragons do not exist somewhere, but we also cannot know that they do exist. Therefore we infer that they do exist.

Remember, as our wise religious philosophers shall teach us, when in doubt whether a particular entity exists or not, always believe that it does exist, just to be safe.

Hell yeah. I've been using this argument since 5th grade :)

Honestly though, people, what does believing in a creator even solve? You still have the same amount of questions as before (one). How did this creator come to be?

Anyone who doesn't think evolution can account for the current distribution of species probably doesn't understand the theory.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
You're really going to try and peddle that bullshit here? its intrinsically a religious idea. no matter what fucking name you give it. If people were created, than there has to be a designer with some sort of magical powers! It is INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS.

I'm not the person who coined the term "Secular Creationism", so take your complaints about the name elsewhere. Second, you obviously don't know jack about the concept I brought up in the first place.

I'm sorry if I destroyed any simplistic illusions about this just being a matter of science vs. religion.

Here's just one example explaining the position of the Orthodox Church, along with a little history:
"Orthodoxy has neither a textual nor a doctrinal basis to reject evolutionism. Neither does it make sense for Orthodox Christians to indulge the current fashion of irrationality (since any irrationality, in the end, will favor occultism and will work against the Church). Before beginning, it should be said that it is more a novelty than a tradition among the Orthodox to disclaim evolution.

First of all, according to the views of the theologians of the very traditionalist Russian Church Abroad, "the Days of creation should be understood not literally ("For a thousand years in Thine eyes, O Lord, are but as yesterday that is past, and as a watch in the night.") but as periods!"

Secondly, the idea of evolution, given its separation from its atheist interpretation, is discussed quite positively in works by Orthodox authors. Prof. Ivan M. Andreev, having rejected the idea that man evolved from monkey, says: "In everything else, Darwinism does not contradict the biblical teaching on the creation of living things because evolution does not address the question of who created the first animals."

Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archbishop Michael (Mudyugin) writes: "The process of evolution of the organic world belongs to the category of phenomena in whose description in the Bible and in the pages of any biology textbook it is easy to see an amazing degree of similarity. The biblical terminology itself fits into the same surprising coincidence — it is said: "Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth after his kind." Here the verb "bring forth" points to the link between distinct phases in formation of the animal world, moreover, to the connection between nonliving and living matter."

Professor Alexey I. Osipov, of the Moscow Theological Academy supposes: "For theology, both the creationist and evolutionary hypotheses are permissible, in principle. That is with the condition that in both cases the Lawgiver and the Creator of the world is God. All existing species He could create either by "days," at once and in final form, or gradually, in the course of "days" to "bring them forth" from water and earth, from lower forms to the highest by way of laws that He built into nature."

Professor of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary in New York, Fr. Vasili Zenkovsky also emphasized the biblical "creative potential" of the earth: "It is clearly stated in the text of the Bible that the Lord gives an order to the earth to act with its own strength . . . This inherent creative activity of nature, "elan vital" (in the expression of Bergson) — the aspiration to life, helps to understand an indisputable fact of evolution of life on earth."

One of the leading authors of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1960's and 70's, Archpriest Nicholas Ivanov was in agreement with the idea of evolutionary development: "The act of the creation of the world and its shaping are manifestations of God’s omnipotence, His will; yet, for Nature, the realization of His will is a long and gradual process, an act of maturation that takes place in time. Numerous transient forms can appear during the process of development, sometimes merely serving as steps in emergence of the more advanced forms, that are linked to eternity."

Professor N. N. Fioletov, who took part in the Local Council of 1917-1918, thought that "in itself the idea of evolution appears not to be alien to the Christian conscience, or in contradiction with it.".....

RE: Article on Orthodoxy and Creationism.


The one statement made about an atheistic interpretation of Evolution is really key here. Most Christian denominations, including mine, have little if anything against a Theistic interepretation of evolution.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm not the person who coined the term "Secular Creationism", so take your complaints about the name elsewhere. Second, you obviously don't know jack about the concept I brought up in the first place.

I'm sorry if I destroyed any simplistic illusions about this just being a matter of science vs. religion.

Here's just one example explaining the position of the Orthodox Church, along with a little history:


RE: Article on Orthodoxy and Creationism.


The one statement made about an atheistic interpretation of Evolution is really key here. Most Christian denominations, including mine, have little if anything against a Theistic interepretation of evolution.

I have no complaints about Christians accepting evolution. What you quoted still doesnt address the idea that creationism is inherently religious. I understand that not all religious people are creationists (not even all Christians). However, How one can claim to be a creationist in a "secular sense" is beyond me. What other source of this "creation from magic" could they be referring to? Aliens?, new age spiritiualism?, magic? Its a religious idea, period.

It has to come down to religion versus science at some point: where do theistic evolutionists propose the soul gets involved? Did astrolopithicus have a soul? Did Neanderthals have a soul? Accepting theistic evolution just adds more ad hoc explanations to rid the theistic world view of absurdities.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Obviously you failed to take up my offer to actually google "Secular Creationism".

Oh well, happy reading:
The New Creationism

that article seems to be about the implications of reductionism and determinism/libertarian free will more than anything else.

But the notion that humans have no shared, biologically based "nature" constitutes a theory of human nature itself. No one, after all, is challenging the idea that chimpanzees have a chimpanzee nature -- that is, a set of genetically scripted tendencies and potential responses that evolved along with the physical characteristics we recognize as chimpanzee-like. To set humans apart from even our closest animal relatives as the one species that is exempt from the influences of biology is to suggest that we do indeed possess a defining "essence," and that it is defined by our unique and miraculous freedom from biology. The result is an ideological outlook eerily similar to that of religious creationism. Like their fundamentalist Christian counterparts, the most extreme antibiologists suggest that humans occupy a status utterly different from and clearly "above" that of all other living beings. And, like the religious fundamentalists, the new academic creationists defend their stance as if all of human dignity -- and all hope for the future -- were at stake.

come on. these are religious people in denial. The bolded part is clearly referring to a soul or something else equally as ridiculous, just so they can claim libertarian free will.

OFF TOPIC: i still dont see why this bothers anyone. Determinism and reductionism dont rob us of anything really. its not demeaning to the social scientist to have an understanding of how everything reduces to physics. Its not like its ever going to be possible to have physicists do all of our research. We dont get hot n bothered about playing chess on a computer just because one could in theory play computer chess with 01010101 command/readouts do we?

BACK ON TOPIC:
I still have yet to read about the proposed mechanism of secular creationism.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
The fact that humans develop primitive gills as embryos kinda sealed the deal for me.

Are you referring to "Recapitulation theory"? I believe this was debunked a long time ago.

Haeckel proposed that the embryonal development of an individual organism (its ontogeny) followed the same path as the evolutionary history of its species (its phylogeny). This theory, in the highly elaborate and deterministic form advanced by Haeckel, has, since the early twentieth century, been refuted on many fronts.

...
For example, Haeckel believed that the human embryo with gill slits (pharyngeal arches) in the neck not only signified a fishlike ancestor, but represented an adult "fishlike" developmental stage. Embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function.

Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I dont agree with the "nobody knows...therefore its 50:50 at this point". His "admitted ignorance" is related to the flaws in calculating odds for something that doesnt have to be as particular of a structure as some people think. The "ignorance" is referring to how some people go off making calculations with the assumption that life had to evolve in one shot from a very particular 4 nucleotide DNA (or RNA) code. Calculating the odds of one person winning the lottery is a lot different than calculating the odds that SOMEBODY wins the lottery.

I never said it was 50/50. :jew:

The ignorance of the author I was referring to was this: "no one knows what the first life was."

He doesn't know that his interpretation is probable, neither does he know if it is possible, yet this doesn't seem to concern him.

the only limit to science is that it lacks the component simplicity of math and is more ambiguous than pure logic. That isn't to say that we dont make mistakes with science (we do). What it says is that the method of science is pretty high up there on methods that lead to human knowledge.

Can you really deny that in this very moment you are experiencing something? No. Experiences are the foundation of knowledge. In the sense that when I say something like: "Owl has a cat", we can investigate such a prediction by gathering experiences that either confirm or deny such a statement. This is why one persons experience of the paranormal doesnt mean much against science. Science represents MANY "experiences" where there is repeatability and convergence on the idea that there is no paranormal.

the assumption: experiences are real (there is no reason to believe in a cartesian demon), is an assumption most sane people are pretty comfortable with.

If we are really going to question the "assumptions of science" and the "method" of science, then the following lays it out in plain sight:

Science has been CONVERGING and becoming more consistent in its findings in the past 1000 years. Religion on the hand has only been DIVERGING. What does this tell you?

How do you know the external world exists? (seriously.)

We cannot know that God does exist, but we also cannot know that he does not exist. Therefore we infer that God exists.

We cannot know that purple, 5000 lb elephants exist in another galaxy, but we also cannot know that they do exist. Therefore we infer that they do exist.

We cannot know that dragons do not exist somewhere, but we also cannot know that they do exist. Therefore we infer that they do exist.

Remember, as our wise religious philosophers shall teach us, when in doubt whether a particular entity exists or not, always believe that it does exist, just to be safe.

Moreover, I do not see why we have any doubt whatsoever about the existence of any of those things. We cannot deductively prove that those things do not exist, but our inductive and abductive reasoning clearly shows that they do not exist. The last two cannot exist because the conditions they require are incompatible with the living conditions provided by the universe. (For instance, 2000 lb purple elephants do not exist on Earth and in order to exist they require similar living conditions as they would on Earth. Such conditions could not be found anywhere).

Belief in God is not alogical because it is cannot be refuted, it is illogical because it can be refuted and reasonableness exhorts us to reject theism for the same reason we must reject the belief in fairies, dragons, gremlins, Santa Claus, or whatever other fantasy that our minds may conjure about what strange things may exist in the broad universe of ours!

If it couldn't be shown that God exists, that would be a problem. I for one do not infer that God exists because it can't be shown that he does not exist.

Science does not examine its own assumptions as critically as philosophy does, however, the assumptions of science are founded on observations of the external world. Science is dedicated to an empirical investigation of the external world. By assumptions, I mean the premises of the argument. Whatever doctrine science holds as true, the premises for the argument supporting the doctrine are founded on what can be observed empirically in the external world. Such observations are subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

The 'assumptions' of religions come from the hearsay of the madmen who heard voices in the sky.

Empirical observation supplies data. Data needs to be interpreted, and religious assumptions are used to interpret empirical data.

However, I don't use the term "religious" in the popular sense. A religion is an ordered set of beliefs a person uses to interpret his experience. In this sense, both the materialist and the theist are religious. It is the function of philosophy to critically analyze these assumptions for meaning.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Are you referring to "Recapitulation theory"? I believe this was debunked a long time ago.
No, not that theory specifically, which seems a little metaphysical. I read the "primitive gills" bit in an Asimov book from 1991. Note that I was kidding about it sealing the deal, I've always thought evolution stood to reason.



textbook-fraud-haeckel-fundamental-concepts-biology-1970.gif
 

Clownmaster

EvanTheClown (ETC)
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
965
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
2
^ The Bird is the Word
[youtube=jXiruaPb9yg]The Bird is the Word[/youtube]
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
^ The Bird is the Word
[youtube=jXiruaPb9yg]The Bird is the Word[/youtube]

haha i saw that one online last night...is that like actaully a song? {goes to look on itunes}
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
No, not that theory specifically, which seems a little metaphysical. I read the "primitive gills" bit in an Asimov book from 1991. Note that I was kidding about it sealing the deal, I've always thought evolution stood to reason.



textbook-fraud-haeckel-fundamental-concepts-biology-1970.gif

It sounds like the same idea going by a different name kinda like Shell Shock and Battle Fatigue. ;) :D
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
I really think this debate is rather pointless. As Peguy pointed out, evolution does not address the question of how the first animal life came into being, only how it evolved. I don't think any theory that leaves this question open can rightly be said to conflict with theism.

As for ID, it merely posits that an intelligent consciousness could have created the universe and the life within it. It's not a "how" idea, it's a "why" idea. It can't possibly conflict with any scientific theory save one that would attempt to explain goings on pre-Big Bang. It's not inherently a creationist idea, but because creationists have latched onto it as a way to try to bully their beliefs into school classrooms, it has become identified with them to its detriment.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I really think this debate is rather pointless. As Peguy pointed out, evolution does not address the question of how the first animal life came into being, only how it evolved. I don't think any theory that leaves this question open can rightly be said to conflict with theism.

God of the gaps...eh? they lost evolution, so now they all retreat to abiogenesis? :D dont you all see a pattern here? of retreat, regroup, retreat, regroup...its rather humorous...

theistic abiogenesis + naturalistic evolution makes no sense said:
if God finely tuned the universe to produce life, why would he have to violate the laws of that finely tuned universe in order to get life started? To argue that life would never arise in this universe without divine help is to say that this universe was specifically designed not to produce life. He can't have both a universe finely tuned to produce life and a life that can only arise by miraculous intervention. But once he has chosen, he will have to get the facts straight...

naturalistic evolution after theistic abiogenesis probably makes the least sense for the above reasons...

As for ID, it merely posits that an intelligent consciousness could have created the universe and the life within it. It's not a "how" idea, it's a "why" idea. It can't possibly conflict with any scientific theory save one that would attempt to explain goings on pre-Big Bang. It's not inherently a creationist idea, but because creationists have latched onto it as a way to try to bully their beliefs into school classrooms, it has become identified with them to its detriment.

creationism and intelligent design are like shell shock and battle fatigue: same fucking thing. Look no further than the "DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" and you will see that its the same people who have concocted a new name for the same theory. I know that you are saying creationist latched on, but like that quote from Peguy on secular creationists, these are religious people in denial. Intelligent design either refers to creationism or refers to nothing at all: the theory makes no predictions and the very fact that its a metaphysical "why" rather than a "how", makes it religious and on the same level as creationism (even if it reportedly accepted evolution after biogenesis).
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
God of the gaps...eh? they lost evolution, so now they all retreat to biogenesis? :D dont you all see a pattern here? of retreat, regroup, retreat, regroup...its rather humorous...

This would only apply to people who started as strict creationists and looked for a soft landing when the veracity of that belief proved troublesome. You can't paint every theist as a creationist who's abandoning their belief in an effort to build consensus.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
If the question up for debate was supposed to be about the origin of life, why not just switch it to Abiogenesis vs. Creationism instead of Evolution vs. Creationism? Evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I don't expect mountains of evidence opposing it to suddenly appear any time soon. And were it wrong, all of modern biology and medicine would be bullshit that shouldn't work. Not believing in Evolution is merely an appeal to ignorance, willful ignorance.

Abiogenesis would be much more useful to discuss because of it is still considered a hypothesis, not enough evidence has been collected to deem it a theory.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How do you know the external world exists? (seriously.)

I said that our experiences (as in the very sensation of experiencing) in the *very moment* were undeniable...not that the external world was undeniable.

However, I dont think we need to be absolutely certain about the external world being *real*. A cartesian demon could theoretically be sending the *experience* of being an all powerful creator to God... so im not sure any *thing* could ever really be 100% sure. Rather than wallow in anal retentive agnosticism, i think most are happy accepting that the external world is real.

Second, it doesnt make sense to talk about this world being an illusion unless there is some other more true reality that exists and CAN BE DISCOVERED. For if we can never discover *the true reality*, then for all intensive purposes, this would be our reality. It only makes practical difference to discuss our world as an illusion if there actually is some other reality you have in mind, that is fundamentally different and deserves more of our attention. The matrix had credibility as an illusion because there were 'glitches' and people who could make you aware of the 'true reality' (as well as machinery in the real world that drove the matrix). take those differences away and the matrix would basically be the exact same as reality (ie no important difference between reality and illusion).
 

Samurai Drifter

New member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
116
MBTI Type
INTP
As a Biology student, this so-called "controversy" has the ability to directly affect me, so I've taken notice of it.

First of all, let's get this out of the way- Intelligent Design is creationism, just dressed up to look more scientific so it can be sneaked into public schools.

The basis of Intelligent Design/Creationism is that each species was separately designed by a higher power. The first problem with this claim is that it is untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore cannot be classified as science.

The second problem with it is that there are veritable mountains of evidence supporting the common ancestry of species. Contrary to the assertions of the Bible thumpers, we do have intermediate forms, and we do have nearly complete fossil records of species.

An amusing point of the issue is that when debating, Creationists group multiple theories under the umbrella of evolution: abiogenesis, the big bang, etc. They are so ignorant of the topics they're attempting to debate that they can't even discern the difference between theories.

There is so much literature out there debunking Intelligent Design/Creationism I don't think it's necessary to take all the effort to summarize it all.

Bottom line is, humans didn't evolve from apes, humans are apes. Believing that species were created separately, or that the Earth is 10,000 years old, is a small step above believing the Earth is flat.
 
Top