Originally posted by loseyourname You are aware that the prefix a- is a negation, are you not? Atheism is the negation of theism; it is not itself a theism. Just as someone who is atypical is not typical.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evolution and Religion
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by sleuth ANY THEISM is religion ,so is aTHEISM..and i refer that not to science but evolution....
Leave a comment:
-
ANY THEISM is religion ,so is aTHEISM..and i refer that not to science but evolution....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Arvestaked No they do not. Evolution is an explanation of why genetics seems to be getting progressively complex, why we have vestigial structures, and why we do not have fossils of all species from all time periods. Mutation and natural selection were proposed explanations of the mechanism by which it occurs. It most likely has another cause we do not understand yet. I can understand if you want to advocate creationism, but at least understand the relationship between those concepts.
I haven't advocated anything yet, I am simply trying to understand evolution and indeed discuss it with those who subscribe to it, because I believe that I have not seen enough evidence, as any scientific person would require, to give evolutionary theory a label of infallibility and having answered what it set out to answer. In this instance, one can make a good case against God and Bible, but since those deal with the realm of faith, and evolution is supposed to be about science, not about faith, that is my point of contention.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion....
Originally posted by Arvestaked That is actually exactly what I wanted to see as a response. It is true the mechanism for evolution is not known and that natural selection and mutations are, most likely not responsible. But I feel it is illogical and arrogant to have the "right until proven wrong" attitude that the godfearers tend to have.
Originally posted by Arvestaked Between vestigial structures, the increasing complexity of genetics, and the fact that fossils of all species cannot be found from any given period is enough to feel that evolution is something that exists.
Originally posted by Arvestaked Just because we do not know why does not mean it is wrong. There were many things just 100 years ago that were not unknown and attributed to God that are now answered and obvious. The only reason that people feel the need to attribute the origin of species to God is because they are used to the idea and put the pressure on themselves to prove he exists (and by prove I mean point out what science yet has not). If the idea of God was never invented by man, the lack of evidence for the mechanism by which evolution occurs would not have brought it about. Some feel the need to be faithful when it comes to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. However, them aside, remember, technology works, so do not judge science as a whole because of a certain few. The ones that argue against the said mechanisms claim that adherence to either of those theories is unscientific.
Even within the evolutionary community there are disagreements and bickering. I believe that most scientists have deviated far from their stated aims and have gotten bogged down way too much with the evolution vs creationist debate, and that can have harmful effects on the scientific academia, and it has in fact led to the intolerance towards any scientist who might question the dogma that evolution is responsible for where we are now.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Anonymouse Mutations and natural selection are what comprise the backbone of the theory of evolution. If it is improbable mathematically, the theory itself is fallible and therefore should arise doubt in people.
You are trying to give an aura of validity by trying to create exclusiveness between the two, when the two in reality go hand in hand.Last edited by Arvestaked; 01-20-2004, 04:39 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Arvestaked The mathematical improbability is only in reference to mutations being responsible for evolution. Not evolution itself.
You are trying to give an aura of validity by trying to create exclusiveness between the two, when the two in reality go hand in hand.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Sorry, but I've never gotten any info regarding evolution from the internet. Take Heather Weber's general biology class and she'll show you some KCET video that talks about it.
Leave a comment:
-
Sorry, but I've never gotten any info regarding evolution from the internet. Take Heather Weber's general biology class and she'll show you some KCET video that talks about it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Sorry, bud. Again, just refer to the Galapagos, or Hawaii, or any archipelago where speciation happens very quickly (relatively speaking, of course). Selective advantage due to point mutations have occured to the point where two groups that could once interbreed no longer can. That is a new species.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: