For those who are interested in the actual controversy, this is a source for the scientists evidence, argument and positions. I'm sorry that this is a 2008 article but the status of the debate is little changed.
If your mind is irrevocably made up there is no need for you to post, this article is merely a resource as to what one side has to say and how the defend their positions and, importantly, what they are actually saying as opposed to the straw man arguments that are usually presented.
Is there a God?
Either God caused the Big Bang, God was surprised by the Big Bang, God(s) sprang forth from the Big Bang, or there is no God.
“The most important book ever written?”
Sorry, Darwin was a reasonably bright fellow, but one could practice biology from now until eternity without ever knowing about evolution. We aren’t talking rocket science here.
And - one’s background with evolution has nothing to do with the obvious goal of this article, which is adherence to political correctness.
It is interesting that the MSM appears to have decided that one’s opinions on biological questions exceed their ability do demonstrate simple moral, intelligence, or leadership qualities. If one wants to see a complete idiot, just google Barack Obama.
If you want important authors in science, try Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, etc.
I only scanned the article, but I didn’t see any reference to the biggest myth of all, the claim that evolution explains the origin of life itself. Both sides of the argument constantly misrepresent evolution in that area.
With debunked tripe such as this, who could take this article seriously?
Heck, take homo sapiens i.e. us. You read about our species and the text always says about 250,000 years ago homo sapiens "suddenly appear". Evolution is the ultimate analog system. Changes should be gradual, in most cases, but definitely not step function. Well the term "suddenly appears" implies a step function. Where are the missing links? One species cannot begat another over nite. There should be cross over types that don't fit any category.
If you study probability and statistics the whole primordial soup thing is just ridiculous.
Honest evolutionists will admit that their theory of origins involves greater miracles than special creation. To believe that the most “simple” stupendously complex single-celled organism could’ve been formed via random processes is beyond laughable.
Evolutionists need to throw some lifeless chemicals together and form life, then get back with me.
The article itself is pure tripe, written almost entirely using ad hominem.
In reality, both sides of the argument are faith-based. I choose faith in God.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I especially like that it addressed the "survival of the fittest" myth.
Ignorant people have bought hook, line, and sinker the "survival of the most ruthless" meme. They wrongly think Darwinism negates the teachings of Christianity. They wrongly think evolution rewards lack of mercy and charity because they wrongly buy into the badly paraphrased "survival of the fittest" tagline invented by philosopher Herbert Spencer -- the words belong to Spencer, NOT Darwin. That stupid Spencer, with his stupid "survival of the fittest" erroneous summation, has caused untold strife and ugliness.
The ability to adapt to a changed or changing environment is what aided in survival, according to Darwin's discoveries. A better way to say it would be "adapt or perish" -- Spencer's "survival of the fittest" is a destructive lie and misrepresentation.
IMO, evolution IS Intelligent Design. Furthermore, ADAPT OR PERISH holds entirely with God and Christianity -- human societies either ADAPT to God's laws and survive, or they defy God's laws and PERISH. America right now is defying the laws of God, and it is on the way to perishing. America must ADAPT to God's laws again if it wants to survive.
Evolutionary theory doesn't challenge God. It challenges MEN.
Actually many of Darwins principles have been proven false. The atmosphere for Millers trigger point of life has been proven to be inaccurate which is a cornerstone of evolution. I do believe in parts of the evolution process, but do not go with the full evolution of how life begins. Many scientists including Harvard and MIT have found that intelligent design , a creator is the most likely scenario for life. I believe we will continue to see more and more evidence as history evolves. Can find some on internet and youtube. Actually believe schools should offer both theory’s and inspire youth to think for themselves. Who knows, maybe it would lead some youth to make a “absolute” discovery one way or the other.
Good article. Well-balanced
The first statement is correct — if you think you know what is meant by “evolution”, you don’t.
Always hilarious to see an article trying to “educate” by totally mixing up concepts.
Like mixing “evolution” and “natural selection” with the moth thing — where there were two colors of moth, and over time one population overtook the other because of changes in environment.
Might was well say that fur coats are proof of “evolution”, because people who buy fur coats are more likely to be found in the cold north in the winter, while people in swimsuits become non-existent.
One thing we can all agree on — evolution of creation: “all living creatures share a common origin”.
What is hilarious is how little that would make sense if evolution were the sole mechanism. Why would you expect that there’d only be ONE possible type of life, and that one type would then be repeated over time, and would CHANGE over time, such that we’d end up with a myriad of unique species, but they’d ALL be identically structured?
When I build for the Lego train show, I have trains, and buildings, and a lake, and cars, and people, and animals, and lamps, and a fountain. EVERYTHING is made of Lego bricks. Even though it could also have been built with Megablocks, or from plastic kits, like the other model trains.
But my whole world was created, and that is why it all is built of the same thing.
Climate change: What we do – and don't – know
There is much we do not understand about Earth's climate. That is hardly surprising, given the complex interplay of physical, chemical and biological processes that determines what happens on our planet’s surface and in its atmosphere. Despite this, we can be certain about some things. For a start, the planet is warming, and human activity is largely responsible. But how much is Earth on course to warm by? What will the global and local effects be? How will it affect our lives? In these articles, Michael Le Page sifts through the evidence to provide a brief guide to what we currently do – and don't – know about the planet's most burning issue.
Climate change: It's even worse than we thought
Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer.
“A few creationists are honest enough to admit ...”
That’s a pretty arrogant way to start your comment, Jim. Your assumptions that God is irrelevant or non-existent are pretty obvious.
I am not a scientist. I am not a biologist nor chemist. Having said that, I don’t get why “evolution” is usually equated with explaining the origin of all life. It explains the adaptation within species. It explains why some species may have died out, but it doesn’t explain how life came to be.
I don’t think it adequately explains or proves that evolution accounts for plant life becoming a mollusk or a fish or a mammal. Or, how a fish became a lizard, or how a lizard became a bird or a cow.
The article states that DNA prove that all life came from a single source - if true, couldn’t that also just imply that there was a common Creator? And, doesn’t the complexity of DNA and RNA demonstrate that random, unguided selection or mutations alone cannot account for certain species to simply “evolve” themselves into existence? That certain mutations would have to happen simultaneously to create the eye or ear, for example? And, aren’t the odds of that happening astronomical?
I am sure I will be dissed by Natural Darwinians that such questions are ignorant and my intelligence lacking - that all such things have been accounted for long ago.
And, I do believe that naturalistic Darwinism does not account for moral absolutes and can indeed lead to amorality. Even if “survival of the fittest” was not Darwin’s term, isn’t it also true that the idea that all life can be accounted for by “natural” mechanisms CAN lead to the idea that the value of one organism is no greater or less than any other, or that “meaning” attributed to existence has any validity over “non-meaning”. Therefore, why is one morality that values “strength” over a morality that values mercy or altruism any better or more moral than the other?
“....and then a miracle happens...” is not exactly a science.
Evolution requires a miracle in several places for it to be true.