A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 15)
42 PagesFirst 13 14 15 16 17  Last
on Dec 23, 2008

First, Evolution per se doesn't "know" anything. Evolution is a process not an intelligent entity.

That is HIS POINT, evolution is NOT sentient and as such doesn't know when to stop, so it does NOT stop.

DNA is the barrier and DNA won't allow  genetic crossover that would be necessary for one kind to "evolve" into a completely different kind with different DNA.

Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about DNA.

on Dec 23, 2008

Whatever made you think that the human eye can see better than modern cameras?

that is the problem that you are having !!!!!

You only looking at a tiny part of the eye's function ...i.e. seeing

the eye, unlike the camera, does much much more than just taking a picture of what it is looking at. here is something for you to read and see what i mean"

"Our eyes, technically, are the most advanced auto focus system around - they even make the cameras look weak. Using the same scenario with an Eagle in the passenger seat, the Eagle, due to its eyes only using Rods, and its distance to its visual cortex being 1/16 of ours wouldn't have seen as much blur in the plane. However, from what we understand of the Visual Cortex, and Rods and Cones, even Eagles can see dizzy blurry objects at times.

What is often called motion blur, is really how our unique vision handles motion, in a stream, not in a frame by frame. If our eyes only saw frames (IE: 30 images a second), like a single lens reflex camera, we'd see images pop in and out of existance and that would really be annoying and not as advantagous to us in our three dimensional space and bodies."

there is more to the human eye than just taking a picture ....

human made devices long ago suprass nature made ones in every single way shape or form.

 

as i said it is useless to even comment on your responses.... your primitive knowledge makes it impossible to intelligently discuss anything with you

on Dec 23, 2008

as i said it is useless to even comment on your responses.... your primitive knowledge makes it impossible to intelligently discuss anything with you

And you will happily confuse the eagle's eyes with human eyes.

Incidentally, GIVE SOURCES.

 

on Dec 23, 2008

I reckon it will kind of go like this: One of these days, we are gonna all die, "Join the choir eternal" John Cleese put it. We will be there and some of the folks from down here will be up there and we will say, "ya know God, the best way I got it figured out is, you made the universe this way." There will be a deep belly laugh from the Great White Throne and the One who made all this will say, "Kiddos, you aren't even close...there is no way for you to understand how I did it, nor do I have the time to explain it. Just know I did it." He is God and we are not.....how can we fathom the works of his hands when the physics of what we see cannot be fully explained. Just my take.

on Dec 23, 2008

And as far as the eyes are concerned... it isn't the view it is the grasping of what is viewed. The hubble space telescope doesn't say, "Look at this beautiful Swan nebula, with all of its radiance, it "says" There is an object. Man identifies it.

on Dec 23, 2008

how can we fathom the works of his hands when the physics of what we see cannot be fully explained. Just my take.

Genesis:  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I also read this in the original hebrew, and I would say a better translation is "And the gods said, behold, man has become wise/intelligent as us, and knows good from evil, and now, lest he reach and partake of the fruit of life and live forever, and become one as us the gods, let us expel him from the garden"

 

Regardless, both translations are perfectly clear that by tasting from the fruit man has become as intelligent as the godS (and for some odd reason genesis refers to god in plural form and specifies only tasting the fruit of the tree of life is needed to become a god).

So the argument that we cannot fathom things because we are not god is doubly stupid:

1. The bible clearly says we are as smart as god.

2. God doesn't even exist and we have already proven ourselves capable of learning anything we so desire.

 

Interestingly enough, God originally forbade tastng the fruit of knowledge, but made no mention of the fruit of life until after eating the fruit of knowledge.

on Dec 23, 2008

There is TONS of science that shows otherwise.

show me! 

 

 

on Dec 24, 2008

And you will happily confuse the eagle's eyes with human eyes.
Incidentally, GIVE SOURCES.

No i am not. It is obvious that you missed the point of that paragraph. It tells you even though the eagles eyes are LESS capable than ours ( in general not in certain capablities)it still have more capabilities than the best cameras. (that is catching the blurr referred to there) ...

you can google "human eye capability" and you will get tons of articles and sources ... i didnt list a source bcs it is readily available anywhere you can search for information ...

Leauki ... you know very well that you are wrong on this ...

I believe we agreed earlier on the fact that there are no contradictions between the two concepts ... Evolution is part and parcel of the Creation.

in fact Evolution itself IS a proof of Creation. That is how:

Entropy dictates that every system (live systems included)... is naturally disposed toward Choas i.e annihiliation/destruction... not order i.e. growth/preservation. 

that is a scientific fact Leauki ... you or I or anyone else (except of course the one with a higher intelligennce than God) can't argue about it. IT IS THE LAW OF TD (Thermodynamics).

Left to their own, all organisms would just annihiliate themselves just like stars and planets do and then they start a new cycle with the same inherent self-destruction tendancy.

Accordingly, where did the desire, and the capability of self-preservation and adaptation of live organisms come from?

that desire and capability only possessed by live organisms .. no other entity in this universe have that ... and nothing can give what it doesnt have ... so how can a live organism get that capability if it had evolved from non-live entity? quantum evolution-jumps cant explain that either. since no other category of this universe's content deveolped that capability.

therefore, that capability must have been imposed on certain group by a higher power than this universe ... i.e. what we call God.

if by evolution you mean that ALL of the Universe's content share the basic material .. then yes they are ... but that is what creation itself say. Man himslef was created using the same material used for everything else including the stars, the palnets and their rocks and energy.

The only thing creation says which is not subject to evolution's development is Man's figure of clay becoming a live-figure of bones, flesh and blood with a soul. There is nothing in any religious Text from God that says other species were not developed from each other as evolution says. 

God only specifically said that He created man in a separate and distinct occasion. Regarding other live forms He only states that He created them .... and he counted some of them ... never saying when or in what sequence ... it could be that he just created and imparted life on a single cell made of something from this universe ... and withen it he imparted its ability to develop with the intent of self-preservation and adaptation to its environment .... He may also have started with few species and let them develop into what we see now ...

Man was the only species that God stated his creation as seperate from other species. and it is very obvious that Man has his special and unique capabilities which support that concept of his special creation.

Other than that .. there is no conflict between the two concepts.

 

on Dec 24, 2008

I believe we agreed earlier on the fact that there are no contradictions between the two concepts ... Evolution is part and parcel of the Creation.

So what exactly is your problem?

that is a scientific fact Leauki ... you or I or anyone else (except of course the one with a higher intelligennce than God) can't argue about it. IT IS THE LAW OF TD (Thermodynamics).

What does the (second?) law of thermodynamics have to do with it? The earth is not a closed system.

 

on Dec 24, 2008

TA, almost every time you post, the formatting is screwed up afterwards. What do you DO?

 

on Dec 24, 2008

my guess is that he just hits quote and then posts... instead of manually adding [] with quote and /quote between them... It is always broken unless manually fixed. Sometimes you also get a broken post. Where copying the entire text from it to a new post fixes all formatting issues. I don't understand why everyone doesn't just use phpbb.

Anyways, TA, you can't just randomly throw "sciency" words together and expect something coherent... second law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Does that put the different fields of study you have butchered at 4 or 5 for this discussion? I lost count?

on Dec 24, 2008

So what exactly is your problem?

it is not my problem. Apparently it is yours !!! you cant say Creationism is a lie then say it is consistent with evolution.

Creationism is a valid concept and is consistent with evolution.

What does the (second?) law of thermodynamics have to do with it? The earth is not a closed system.

The universe is a closed system and Entropy applies to everything in it. and I explained how it applies to evolution.

as for the formatting problem ... i have no idea what causes it. i do nothing more than quote and write in the box.

sometimes i also have encountered the same problem ...

taltamir, just because you cant understand it doesnt mean it is incoherent. ....

Entropy has everything to do with it. nothing can "evolve" to preservation .... on its own everything evolves to a chaotic condition i.e. to annihiliate its previous self not preserve it.

on its own "evolution" cant preserve species .... that ability comes to them from their creator ... not from their environment i.e. not from eveolution.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

on Dec 24, 2008

Just to make things a bit clearer.......The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant-it doesn't change.  The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in a closed system is decreasing.  Everything is going towards disorder as the universe is running down.  So if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy then what we started with was not an infinite amount. 

You can't run out of an infinite amount.  So that has to mean that the universe is and always has been finite.  It could not have existed forever in the past and it will not exist forever into the future.  So therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. 

Back to basics and the basic argument against Evolution needs not to argue on religious grounds.  I don't have to say the bible says it so that settles it for me.  Even though I think that attitude is a good one to have I also can look at good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in creation. 

We seem to forget that the majority of Christians are who founded Modern Science.  Today, most Scientists are liberal minded when it comes to biblical things but that wasn't always so.  I think today that has alot to do with government funding.  It's no coincidence that NIH is funded by the government and where most researchers depend on for money.  It's just another separation of church and state necessity.  Follow the money trail. 

 

on Dec 24, 2008

TA, the earth is not a closed system. Nobody says that evolution is happening in the entire universe. Hence a law applying to closed systems doesn't interfere with evolution.

I also suggest that you read up on both evolution and Creationism before you announce that they are the same. It would really help.

KFC, you are again making this into a Christianity vs evolution discussion. It may be that the majority of scientists are Christians, but that doesn't mean they support Creationism or "Intelligent Design". Evolution can be demonstrated in a lab and we can extrapolate from there. You claim that the extrapolation is invalid but you fail to explain why. Creationism has never been demonstrated in a lab and is hence no science. And that's all there is to it.

 

on Dec 24, 2008

TA, the earth is not a closed system. Nobody says that evolution is happening in the entire universe. Hence a law applying to closed systems doesn't interfere with evolution.

so entropy is not working on Earth???? and earth and its inhabitants are excluded from its effect????!!!

or  only evolution is excluded? ....

that is really new to me ....

tell me then ... where did we discover Entropy??? in outer space????

Wake up Leauki .... pls stop being selectively logical

dont be stubborn ..... you are not thinking logically here

42 PagesFirst 13 14 15 16 17  Last