Debate #9

[loosechanj]

I think my lack of opposition to Intelligent Design is due to the fact that I don't see Evolution as being particularly more valid than a properly expressed ID theory. Darwin gives people who don't want to feel beholden to any higher power the comfort of living in a universe without one, whether that's reality or not.

Comments

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Evolution = Atheism? Er, no.

As for evolution not being "valid science"?

Start here.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

No, athiesm doesn't equal evolution, athiesm just uses evolution as a reason "god" doesn't need to exist.

I should probably clarify "valid science" too. What I meant was Evolution doesn't strike me as any more or less valid than a properly expressed "intelligent design" theory. I'm willing to embrace with glee that fundie X-ians haven't done that.

Design to me doesn't preclude evolution at all. Nor does it require any sort of diety. I just don't see order coming from chaos without some motivator. Yes I know that entropy can run backwards, but to the point of our current situation? Ah well, I suppose the history of Earth is a drop in the bucket of all the 'verse.

If so, then I would expect evolution to have ceased. I can't see entropy operating selectively.

Then you don't properly understand evolution

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

because the primary motivator is survival.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

What I meant was Evolution doesn't strike me as any more or less valid than a properly expressed "intelligent design" theory.

Then you do need to clarify, because evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, while ID has yet to articulate a single testable hypothesis.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Design to me doesn't preclude evolution at all. Nor does it require any sort of diety. I just don't see order coming from chaos without some motivator. Yes I know that entropy can run backwards, but to the point of our current situation? Ah well, I suppose the history of Earth is a drop in the bucket of all the 'verse.

If so, then I would expect evolution to have ceased. I can't see entropy operating selectively.

Entropy is irrelevant to evolution. This is an oft-repeated creationist canard.

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

ID isn't science. Period. And another period.

ID is for fundies who've given up trying to get evolution out of science class. At the core, supporters are insecure that their children don't pay attention to them at home and in church, so feel the need to insert religion into science class.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

That's the kind of hostility to an idea one normally sees in the fundie crowd. Some nice generalizations as well. What about the idea of some sort of creator/planner/etc frightens you so much?

No problem with a creator

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

Big problem with fundies. Especially fundies that base their arguments on a book that wasn't even written until the first century and then discounted as non-literal even by its authors, the Catholic Church.

Yes, ALL source documents of the Bible are owned and written by the Catholic Church, even the King James.

I might point out that even the Catholic Church

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

teaches evolution in its parish schools. They do NOT teach ID.

[billemon.livejournal.com]

I think that's a great way to put it (the last bit). It seems like a lot of atheists like to take comfort in their belief that Darwin "proves God doesn't exist" (which it doesn't; it just shows that the world is a pretty shitty place to live if you aren't the "fittest" at the time :))

Setting out to, or in any way seeking to "disprove the existence of «a deity»" is a misapplication of science, as opposed to using scientific method(s) to uncover whatever the truth may be. ("In my opinion.")

Excuse me but

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

I am far from being an atheist.

[arachnophiliac.livejournal.com]

Darwin didn't set out to disprove God. He set out to explain the things he was observing in the world around him. Neither the theory of evolution nor science in general have anything to say on the existence of a Magical Fairy in the Sky. It's irrelevant.

If atheists find evolution "comforting" it is only because it allows us to explain one of the great questions the universe--how do we explain the diversity of life?--without resorting to an unscientific cop-out of "Goddiddit". Evolution, along with all other powerful scientific theories, puts another coffin nail in the notion that supernatural--i.e. useless--explanations are necessary to fill in the gaps.

It doesn't even prove your point.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Plenty of non-viable species can live as well as viable ones. They just don't manage to reproduce offspring in sufficient quantities to maintain the species. Doesn't mean the world is any shittier to them than to others.

A lot of atheists (in your experience) are fools. The ones I know, on the other hand, do not say that the Theory of Evolution proves there is no creator. They might go so far as to say it is further evidence of absence, though.

[shared-boxers.livejournal.com]

I don't see Evolution as being particularly more valid than a properly expressed ID theory

Um, except one theory is backed-up by empirical evidence and provable information which has been used to accurately predict natural patterns. And the other is based on an old book, with no supporting evidence other than trying to disprove the other theory. It doesn't matter how properly expresed an ID theory is, it has no scientific foundation. And yes, evolution theory isn't complete, and it has some things to get worked out, but it's the right path; where as ID/creationism isn't even a theory, it's more like a "what if..." scenario.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

I've yet to see any empirical evidence for evolution.

Not even dude!

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

There are lots of proofs and even present day examples of evolution and mutation, if you'd bother to look.

However, ID includes the concept that the world was only created less than 7,000 years ago. There's LOTS of evidence to show that as a massive FUBAR.

Re: Not even dude!

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

I'm probably completely mistaken about what I think is ID, but I have yet to see a single example of evolution. And no, adaptation to a changing environment doesn't count.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Evolution doesn't address the existence of a higher power. Theories of a higher power don't address evolution. They're irrelevant to each other. "Intelligent Design" does not describe any measureable or observeable process; it's just "it happened by magic", which means "don't study it".

It's worth studying, and the people who say it isn't are full of shit.

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

As I said above, I'm probably quite mistaken as to what *I* consider intelligent design to be. Almost certainly it's not what the fundies are pushing.

[shamus9999.livejournal.com]

You've been touched by His noodly appendage! I'm in awe!

[skratchgirl.livejournal.com]

jesus saves!

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes he does!

[will63.livejournal.com]

iawtc

[michellinator.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why people get so worked up about it - our whole school district is in a tizzy about what to teach, and I think it doesn't much matter since NONE of it can be proven or disproven. Fuckit, teach them whatever, and if the parents are involved and concerned, they'll have already been taught their version at home. Better yet, teach them every version of how we came to be where we are that you can find, and let THEIR generation sort it out for themselves. Drawing your own conclusions is infinitely more valuable than regurgitating what you've read anyway.

[twid.livejournal.com]

That's crazy talk. Evolution is based on heaps of scientific observation and evidence. Tell you what, if you happen to be in a car accident and you're bleeding to death, refuse any help from the paramedics based on the fact that it can't be proven if their assistance will help you any more than prayer.

Drawing your own conclusions is fine, but not in science class. In science class you use observable evidence and experimentation to prove theories. You don't just make shit up and say "well, shucks, this is just as valid."