Creationism vs evolution

This is where to discuss the legality of entheogens, entheogen law, anarchy, politics, etc.
Post Reply
jse
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:00 pm

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by jse » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:45 pm

When i was at school i remeber evolution been taught as fact and we got barly any religous teaching. Kids are clever a see no reason to not teach them side by side and let the kids decide for themselfs

User avatar
salvia_explorer
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Boston area

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by salvia_explorer » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:00 pm

jse wrote:When i was at school i remeber evolution been taught as fact and we got barly any religous teaching. Kids are clever a see no reason to not teach them side by side and let the kids decide for themselfs
There are numberous problems with teaching religious beliefs side by side with science.

1) Time...the time spent teaching religious beliefs takes away from the time learning something else.

2) Which religious beliefs are we going to teach? Then we should also be teaching the theories that all religions have, not just the christian theory of creationism.

3) There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. State monies going to education should not be spent to teach religious fantasies.

If people want to learn about specific religious fantasies, they have every right to do that in their respective churches. State money should not be supporting the furthering of religious concepts.

Peace,
SE

User avatar
greeny
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:00 pm

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by greeny » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:10 pm

Azagaroth wrote:i didnt explain my arguement very well cos i was tired and watching the xfiles at the time. to be honest i cant be bothered to explain my arguement now, cos no matter what i said it is doubtful anyone wants to give up their precious theory of evolution.
I never put any effort in making these theories, and I never put any serious stake in them to support my lifestyle (whether it's a job in a university, or in a church), or a world-view, so I couldn't care less about defending them.

I'm not that attached to them, so to speak. I also don't feel that threatened by creationism, and I also don't feel that it's necessary to call them silly. I couldn't care less about what the god thinks, or what some people want us to think about what he thinks.

I'm also open to any other theories that explain the progression seen in the fossil records, and the changes seen in the micro-lifeforms. So tell me what's on your mind Aza.

By the way, I think the term you're looking for with your argument is called "irreducible complexity." I gave you a link for that in my last post. You should read it... I think it's pretty fairly written.

User avatar
salvia_explorer
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Boston area

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by salvia_explorer » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:24 pm

greeny wrote:I never put any effort in making these theories, and I never put any serious stake in them to support my lifestyle (whether it's a job in a university, or in a church), or a world-view, so I couldn't care less about defending them.
I don't care about defending evolutionism vs creationism. Everyone can believe what they want. I personally believe that religion is silly, like believing in spooks, smoke and goblins, but thats just my opinion.

But I do care a lot about allowing religious zealots get their way about teaching creationism or any other privately held religious belief in public schools...let them do that and we all lose.

User avatar
Azagaroth
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire, England

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by Azagaroth » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:04 pm

salvia_explorer wrote:I don't care about defending evolutionism vs creationism. Everyone can believe what they want. I personally believe that religion is silly, like believing in spooks, smoke and goblins, but thats just my opinion.

But I do care a lot about allowing religious zealots get their way about teaching creationism or any other privately held religious belief in public schools...let them do that and we all lose.
This is the mistake though, im not religious. I do believe in creationism though. You might think the two are canceled out... but in my reality this world is a total fabrication of illusion, a grand design of intelligence, which indicates creationism as apposed to 'random acts of nature'

In the final equation evolution is used by those to defend a lifestyle not worth defending. Because by embrasing evolution, then you are instantly 'excused' from making a difference in life, because "what is the point"

If we are just chemical/biological 'accidents' then what is the point of anything? This idea bubbling in the sub-concious is what keeps many people from looking deeper. I believe we are far more than the physical world, and that this thing we call reality is amazingly intricate and detailed, "master craftsmanship".

Now I don't call that "god" or whatever, as I said, im not conventionally religious. I do have my own spiritual religion, but its to complicated to discuss. I dunno, im rambling. Greeny, Ill check out the link you posted in the morning when im feeling awake!

User avatar
Azagaroth
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire, England

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by Azagaroth » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:10 pm

salvia_explorer wrote:The sun has changed? :eek: I guess I missed that memo...lol
Ever hear of sunspots and solar radiation? I think you will find it explains why our planet, and many others in the solar system (jupiter for example) are experiencing a period of increased warming. I mean, just 10 years ago they were talking about another ice age.

Bottom line, man made global warming is the new 'religious dogma of the liberals', and guess what, a global carbon tax isnt going to save you. I have nothing against supporting the environment, but not at the cost of our own enslavement. Even the UN's own figures on global warming suggest a maximum of 6% impact from humans. The sun is the solar system (99% of the total mass), when it changes, everything else in the system changes with it.

Oh, and that gore film, inconvient truth would have been better had he not mangled his ice core sample facts. He stated that as carbon dioxide levels rise, the tempreture follows. In fact, it is the opposite way round. As tempreture increases, then carbon dioxide rises. :lol: Gore is an establishment idiot shilling for the NWO anyway.

I just hate the liberal religion which is 'environment and global warming'. And if you dare question it then you are a nazi or whatever.

This world sucks. Hopefully the sun will just go supernova and finish the job... :roll:

(i appologise, im in a really foul mood tonight)

User avatar
Azagaroth
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire, England

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by Azagaroth » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:14 pm

greeny wrote: By the way, I think the term you're looking for with your argument is called "irreducible complexity." I gave you a link for that in my last post. You should read it... I think it's pretty fairly written.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Im a bit out of my depth with biology, but yes, this is my arguement.

The flagella is an example of this because of its motor system, consisting of 30 seperate systems working in unison. The evolution of this is to much to chance IMO. Its one of the most perfect systems found in the planet, so much so that Nanoscientists use the Bacteria Flagella for modelling their new nano-engine techs

User avatar
jux
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: in a parallel universe

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by jux » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:57 pm

Azagaroth wrote: In the final equation evolution is used by those to defend a lifestyle not worth defending. Because by embrasing evolution, then you are instantly 'excused' from making a difference in life, because "what is the point"
thats a pretty glib interpretation of an evolutionists way of thinking. you are basically implying that without the threat of judgement from god people will be complacent, unproductive members of society...that is simply rediculous... maybe you feel that you dont have the capability to be succesful or to "make a difference in life" without believing in creationism...but i dont suffer from that problem and i do just fine.

User avatar
jux
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: in a parallel universe

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by jux » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:09 pm

ahh irreducible complexity...more ID psuedoscience. this concept is based on works by michael behe, which was based on a faulty premise (which is really just a rehash of the old "watchmaker" arguement)

anyways, heres an article that discusses irreducible complexity (including the flagellum arguement)


Evolution response to Michael J. Behe
The Flaw in the Mousetrap
Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.
By Kenneth R. Miller
Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.


To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since "natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working," there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical "evidence" for intelligent design.
Parts of a supposedly irreducibly complex machine may have different, but still useful, functions.

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.
Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.
He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.
The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.
Working researchers see evolution in subcellular systems.



And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.
Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific.


If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

User avatar
jux
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: in a parallel universe

Re: Creationism vs evolution -

Post by jux » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:13 pm

some further reading on the subject (stolen from http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Irreducible_complexity)

The notion of irreducible complexity was introduced by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box.

Michael Behe claims that an irreducibly complex system cannot evolve through gradual accumulation of parts, and implicitly claims that it cannot evolve at all. From this, he concludes that any irreducibly complex system found in nature must have been designed by an intelligent being.

This argument rests on several faulty assumptions:

Faulty assumption #1: Evolution can only proceed by adding parts, never by removing them. In fact, evolution can remove parts as easily as add new ones (perhaps more easily, even). If the system functions better without a given part, there will be selective pressure to remove it. Some species of bats and deep-water fish lack functioning eyes; it costs resources to grow eyes, for little or no benefit. Whales, although once quadrapeds, no longer have functioning hind legs. Humans no longer have decernable tails.

Faulty assumption #2: Biological systems never change function. However, the components of an irreducibly complex system, individually or together, can serve a purpose other than that performed by the final system. As Kenneth Miller likes to demonstrate, a mousetrap with a missing trigger can be used as a tie clip; if the spring is missing, it can still be used as a key chain; and the base by itself can be used as a paperweight.

Faulty assumption #3: Helpful parts cannot become required parts. But most "IC systems", when examined across many organisms, exhibit variability in what parts are required. See

In addition, at the atomic and molecular level, the interaction of the building blocks may be thought of more as Complex adaptive systems than bowling balls. Another problem with irreducible complexity, as it is used by IDists, is that the implied intelligent designer would also probably be irreducibly complex.
Last edited by jux on Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply