Both extremes wrong in evolution debate

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 10/17/03 | Jean Swenson

[Dimensio]

But by God, I know people are net MERELY animals, we are much, Much more!

Sorry, but definitions are based upon physical traits, not what you "really, really know, by God!". Thus far you've not demonstrated that humans should not be classified as animals, you've merely demonstrated that you think that science should ignore reality in favour of what makes you feel good.

[RightWingNilla]

Yeah, good luck with that animal thing.

Geez don't you know how to even spell your own name?

[walden]

"It is far from the dogmatic theory implied."

I'm sure you're right, but I don't think that's how it is taught in k-12 schools.

[Rocky]

You are in control of gravity in the sense that you can repeat the experiment. Gravity has to behave the same way every time. It doesn't have a will. If you raise an object and let it go, gravity has to make it fall. In that sense, you are its master. You can predict what it will do, and take advantage of it to get what you want.

[gore3000]

Animals slowly developed defenses against predators so their species would survive. I am told to believe these defenses take a very long time to develope. I cannot help but wonder why wouldn't the predators kill them off in the meantime? I mean, "It's not an armoured plate yet, it's hard skin, wait 50,000 years, you won't eat me then!" or " I can't really fly yet, but you just wait 100,000 years, you won't catch me then!"

This is one of the problems with evolutionary theory. On the one hand it says that species change in order to conform to changes in the environment, on the other it says that these changes are gradual and take a long time. Now, environmental changes affecting species include other species around them and of course a new species moving into an area which it previously did not inhabit can cause great destruction. This is one of the reasons for strong controls on importation of animals and plants from different countries - they often destroy existing species, they do not cause them to mutate and survive. This is just another example where commonly known and commonly applied scientific principles show evolution to be false.

[gore3000]

Defensive traits evolved because as the creatures started to develop them, they had a survival advantage over other creatures without them.

Absolute garbage. The introduction of new species into an environment invariably results in destruction of species which previously inhabited there, not in their mutation and survival. This is a very common occurrence nowadays because of international travel and it has shown that this evolutionary claim is totally false.

The environment changes way too fast for species to be able to evolve new abilities to survive them. If this were so, with the rapid changes that occur in the environment which take place in most cases in less than a year, we would have been able to see numerous transformations of species to adapt to these changes in the last 150 years. Instead evolutionists cannot point to a single such change having occurred.

[gore3000]

I don't know of any scientific theory presented that "rejects any possibility of creative intelligence".

Evolution (of course it is not a scientific theory). By denying that man is little different from apes, chimps and lower species it denies that creative intelligence exists.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[gore3000]

The theory of evolution is not a true or false proposition.

Of course it is. NOthing can be both true and false. The proposition that species transform themselves through gradual random events sifted through natural selection has already been proven false by science. It is impossible for a system to gradually evolve when for it to function in a beneficial way (and thus survive natural selection) requires that the entire system be in place. Gradual and together at once are opposites so both cannot be true. Thus not only is the proposition of the truth of evolution falsifiable, it has been falsified already.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your analysis!

However, since creationism is by definition NOT scientific in nature, it still should not be taught as such. It takes the scientific method and upends it...taking observations and forcing them to fit the theory. The theory itself is never questioned or modified.

IMHO - for that very same reason, metaphysical naturalism (atheism) should not be taught in public schools, K-12 either.

[gore3000]

This isn't about blasting religious people, it is about ensuring the separation of religion and science.

Atheism is a religious view and when atheism is promoted in the name of science one is mixing science and religion. This is exactly what evolution and evolutionists are doing.

[Dimensio]

I know people are net MERELY animals

I think that you're starting to understand. My cat is also not "MERELY" an animal. It has unique traits that differentiate it from other, non-feline, animals, as well as traits that distinguish it as a unique entity in its own right.

[gore3000]

Once again, what does this have to do with your argument that humans are not animals?

What all the questions asked by Hank have to do with it is that if life is due to special creation and evolution is false then we certainly are unique and made in the image of God, not of chimps. The scientific evidence of human capacities certainly shows the vast gulf between humans and chimps.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Strawman. No one is saying scientific criticism must be banned.

[vt_crosscut]

"The problem I have with creationist theory of any sort is that, at some point, one must abandon reason and factual science and rely on faith. That's fine, within the confines of religion or philosophy, but not for science."

The problem that I have with evolutionists is that they refuse to admit that at some point they must abandon reason and factual science and rely on faith. Show me your evidence of how a living organism started from unliving random chemicals. If evolution doesn't have any assumptions involved in it, then show me one lab experiment where a scientist created a living organism by dumping chemicals into a test tube.

I believe that God spoke and life was created. You believe that chemicals bumped into each other and life was created. Because neither one of us can prove our theory of how life was created, both of our theories are based on faith. To disregard creation because it is based on faith, but refuse to admit that evolution is also based on faith is foolish.

[Dimensio]

The problem that I have with evolutionists is that they refuse to admit that at some point they must abandon reason and factual science and rely on faith. Show me your evidence of how a living organism started from unliving random chemicals.

Non-sequitur. Evolution has nothing to do with "how a living organizsm started from unliving random chemicals".

[ZULU]

"For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

Whether or not mutations are "random" or Divinely directed, is a subject for theological and philosophical debate. The fact that such mutations occur and result in speciation is beyond reproach, based on all current evidence. If anyone out there in the scientific community has information which indicates otherwise, they are more than free to present it. Until now, I have found only rantings by Biblical literalists the only critical statements issued against Evolution as a theory of speciation, and these are not even worth considera.

[CodeMonkey]

Atheism is a religious view and when atheism is promoted in the name of science one is mixing science and religion. This is exactly what evolution and evolutionists are doing.

No, that is your opinion. Biologists have to have a means to naturally explain the origin of life. Evolution, as imperfect as it is, does that. You cannot have real science without that. That is as impossible as maintaining a free market economy without lax social controls.

[CodeMonkey]

To disregard creation because it is based on faith, but refuse to admit that evolution is also based on faith is foolish.

Evolution is not based on faith. It is a scientific theory and thus is either based on some proven fact or it is discarded.

[CodeMonkey]

image of God, not of chimps

Are you making the pagan assertion that God looks like a male human? What race is God? Is God white? Black? Dark skinned arab or a stereotype of what Jews are "supposed to look like?" Or maybe God looks like a typical person from China.

But maybe, just maybe, being created in the image of has nothing to do with body and mind but spirit.