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 17)
42 PagesFirst 15 16 17 18 19  Last
on Dec 25, 2008

Like I said, creationists have no problem with microevolution within a species.  The debate is over whether or not life could evolve from nothing, from one species to an entirely different one.  Darwin's finches and those laboratory fruit flies are certainly examples of evolution, but they aren't changing into cats.

Also, there is no recorded major mutation (to my knowledge) which has provided an overall benefit.  For example, having sickle-cell anemia makes you virtually immune to malaria, but what good is that when the anemia kills you?

on Dec 25, 2008

IQofSpam... there are now bacteria that digest latex, a man made compound that did not exist in nature 100 years ago. That means that it HAD to have evolved fairly recently.

on Dec 25, 2008

There is NO evidence of evolution occurring at present and second there is no evidence that evolution has occurred in the past

As I said, you are completely ignoring the fact that evolution has been observed in labs.

 

on Dec 25, 2008

IQofSpam... there are now bacteria that digest latex, a man made compound that did not exist in nature 100 years ago. That means that it HAD to have evolved fairly recently.

Some god created them, some god who is into latex.

 

on Dec 25, 2008

Like I said, creationists have no problem with microevolution within a species. 

How would that mechanism know when to stop?

Incidentally, ALL Darwinism evolution happens "within a species". Like most Creationists, you misunderstand both evolution and what a species is.

 

The debate is over whether or not life could evolve from nothing, from one species to an entirely different one.  Darwin's finches and those laboratory fruit flies are certainly examples of evolution, but they aren't changing into cats.

And if they were, we'd have proof against evolution, because Darwin's theory said that changes are GRADUAL, not "from one species to an entirely different one".

(Darwin's theory also doesn't say anything about how life got started.)

People, could you at least have the decency to attack Darwinism rather than a strange parody of it?

 

Also, there is no recorded major mutation (to my knowledge) which has provided an overall benefit.  For example, having sickle-cell anemia makes you virtually immune to malaria, but what good is that when the anemia kills you?

You picked up some keywords but failed to understand the entire story.

And I quote:

That's the point: the sickle gene protects its heterozygous carriers against malaria. They're not immune to the disease, but it can't kill them because it doesn't reach sufficient quantity in their blood to do so.

But it's an imperfect solution because it protects the heterozygous individuals at the expense of everyone else. They're doing fine, but everyone else suffers because they exist.

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

Sickle cell anaemia doesn't make you immune to malaria. Instead a carrier of the gene that causes sickle cell anaemia is protected against malaria symptoms. But a carrier of the genes from both parents will suffer from sickle cell anaemia.

The fact that for a larger number of people carrying the gene is an advantage makes the gene survive. That is evolution.

Do you think that mechanism was designed by G-d?

 

on Dec 25, 2008

you guys need to get your stories straight.  Fact or theory? 

In science the word "theory" does not mean the same as in colloquial English.

Evolution is fact and theory.

 

on Dec 25, 2008

Backup has arrived, KFC.

 

Evolution is fact and theory.

Is that a fact? Or a theory? 

 

on Dec 25, 2008

Is that a fact? Or a theory? 

Again, KFC, in science the word "theory" does not mean the same as in colloquial English.

Evolution is fact _and_ theory. There is no contradiction between the two.

But I already know that in your very next comment you will pretend that you never ever heard of that fact.

 

on Dec 25, 2008

But I already know that in your very next comment you will pretend that you never ever heard of that fact.

oh no Leauki.  I don't have to pretend.  I really never heard that ever before.   I don't see how that can be. 

Why pretend when I can give you the truth? 

 

on Dec 25, 2008

Oh no Leauki.  I don't have to pretend.  I really never heard that ever before.   I don't see how that can be. 

Why pretend when I can give you the truth?

Please, you have already pretended that you didn't know when you replied to the very comment in which I explained that in science "theory" doesn't mean the same as in colloquial English.

But then again, the subject came up often in the evolution threads here. I find it very interesting that you must have missed it completely.

Either way, can I assume that from now on you will know that in science the word "theory" does not mean what it means in colloquial English and that hence the dualism fact <-> theory that exists in colloquial English does not exist in science?

 

on Dec 25, 2008

In any case, if the creationist interpretation of the Second Law was correct, a lot more things than evolution would be impossible. For instance, it would be impossible to breed. You start with two humans and end up with three. Looks like an increase in order to me -- obviously it can't happen. It would also be impossible for a child to grow: five years ago she weighed 20 kilos and now she weighs 35 kilos, which means we've created an additional 15 kilos of ordered mass.

That is exactly my point .... I already said that .. the ability for growth/self-preservation can not come from the genetic system's evolution. left to evolution alone, it will act like any other system which do not have that ability.

you dont see two rocks come together to produce a third one and the three continue to grow .... in fact the opposite happens... left to their own, rocks disintegrate .... sometimes they are forced by outside forces  to coagulate and two particles become one larger one not three (or more in live systems)... but eventually it disintegrate again ... never able to preserve their ownself.

a rock gets eroded ... never able to grow again in excatly the same pattern as it was ... but you get a cut on your arm and it heals excatly as it was unless there was a major break in the barrier that isolates your genes from the surroundings (and that barrier is what makes it a closed system). in that case your wound either heals in different pattern (and you get a scar) or gets infected if your system is overcome by outside interference ...

Also, the fact that eventually even live-systems disintegrate is a proof that entropy is still able to overcome that natural desire ... because that capability is limited (by creatinon's design) and not due to evolution. If that ability was due to evolution, why does it not preserve the organism forever?.... that is the main point of evolution ... isnt it? why does it not continue to preserve each and every single member of its species?

The answer is obvious .. because it is not evolution on its own ... that mechanism of preservation was created with the inherent tendency to eventually decay after a certain stage in its life and that lets Entropy perform its function toward vanishing order within each organism.

That by itself tells us three things:

1- the genetic system is closed and is subject to entropy

2- the desire to overcome that entropy is a time-limited capability which eventually stops and that lets entropy perform its function toward eventual demise of the order of that particular organism

3- each live organism has its own time-limit.

pure evolution cant possibly do that by its own mechanism ..... that is ..."survival of the fittest"

As you indicated before, evolution doesnt stop because it doesnt know when to stop ... but all individual organisms die ... i.e do not survive ... why not? because evolution cant maintain that desire to survive since it is not coming from it ... it is coming from each organism's genes as dictated by its creator either directly (as in the case of Man) or through its design that allowed it to evolve in a certain way.

it is clear that this issue is like the issue of God's existence. it all depends on whether you discuss the issue with or without preconceptions.

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Hold on now...aren't scientist supposed to have a thesis and an antithesis. What is the anti-thesis of Evolution?

on Dec 26, 2008

MusicMayne
Hold on now...aren't scientist supposed to have a thesis and an antithesis. What is the anti-thesis of Evolution?

No, you are thinking about religion (christ and anti-christ)

on Dec 26, 2008

Leauki,  Sodaiho here. Brad, the owner of JU, has deleted my blog and exiled me.  Stay in touch: harveyhilbert@yahoo.com

 

Shalom,

Harvey

on Dec 26, 2008

Y did they exile Harvey?

42 PagesFirst 15 16 17 18 19  Last