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 23)
42 PagesFirst 21 22 23 24 25  Last
on Dec 29, 2008

The point is ttrue science and history reveals an abundance of physical evidence for Special Creation......such as the existence of the coded information in our DNA and the fossil record itself. Both indicate specificity and order in design and the laws of nature.

Neither DNA encoding nor the fossil record constitute evidence of Special Creation.  A bald-faced claim that they do just doesn't cut it.

What, exactly, do 'specificity' and 'order' have to do with proof of Special Creation?  'Proving' creationism apparently involves arguing that what we actually see (observations) are 'impossible' and therefore could not have occurred 'naturally.'  Sorry, but proving something is 'impossible' is, well... impossible.  Nature could care less whether you can get your mind around it.

on Dec 29, 2008

Creationists do not beleive in #2. They say it is impossible for a mistake during gene copy to occur and create an antirely new gene. Despite it being easily observed in a lab (and in nature), they claim that all genes already exist and new genes occur, and they are just mixed and matched. (aka, their beloved psudeo science of micro evolution).

Also, they cling to "missing links" (despite those having been found decades ago). And other "irregularities in the theory" from the 1800s that have long since been solved.

What has empirical science shown about DNA and its inherent barriers?

One.....that each species  (for me, I go by the word "kind" in Genesis) has its own specific DNA code structure and complementary protein molecules. Each has an inherent specification (for me that's God given), that ensures the basic "kind" remains unique.

Yes, man has been able to create adaptations or mutations, but in those cases genetic information is lost, not gained and so a truly, higher, new species does not arise. The genetic system offers resistance (genetic barriers) to these changes, always with a tendency to revert back to its basic type. This is why the possibility of all life including human beings emerging from a common progenitor is definitely ruled out as biologically impossible....and although I haven't read IQ's posts, I'm thinking he has been telling of the immense numerical odds against it.

Sorry, the missing links are still missing and that is a major problem for Evolutionary scientists. Even Darwin candidly recognized the gravest objection to his own theory.

If MacroEvolution (one "kind" evolving into a completely different "kind") occurred down through the millions of years, an ample number of transitional creatures should by now have been found in the fossil record. We should have unearthed whole chains of them in a series between one major "kind" and another, but they are not there.....Sorry about that.

 

The fossils that have been found are identical to creatures alive today.  

 

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

 ... I admit that you have successfully disproved the parody of Darwinism you seem to have picked up somewhere.

Well, I've done what I can.  With your definition of evolution, I have no idea what it has to do with creationism at all.  You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.

on Dec 29, 2008

Each side is arguing over a completely different definition of evolution, so this debate will continue indefinitely.

Yes, I said that before.

And I admit that you have successfully disproved the parody of Darwinism you seem to have picked up somewhere.

But the real theory of evolution is rather different than the one the Creationist Web sites talk about.

 We've certainly discovered that "evolution" is a confusing term and that's because Evolution is a lie embedded in truth.

Identification of the word "evolution" came with Darwin's theory that all life forms are the result of a long process of development unfolding in time by natural selection and survival of the fittest. Excluding God from Creation, others took Darwin's theory and created a dogma for the emerging new world religion, Atheism.  That's why we discuss both terms......micro and macro evolution.

Creationism supports "microevolution" (that is, change within "kind") which is God choosing to work through secondary causes...the laws of nature (which He created) governing the way all living matter performs.  Can God intervene anytime in the operation of the universe?...Absolutely, He did when Christ raised the dead Lazurus back to life and when He brought the Flood of Noah.

     

 

on Dec 29, 2008

he fossils that have been found are identical to creatures alive today.

Come to think of it, I did see a T. rex just the other day.  Shit, what was I thinking?  Creationism must be the one & only truth.

Sorry, but an idea or proposition must be intelligible before reason can be applied to it (to paraphrase T. Jefferson).

Well, I've done what I can. With your definition of evolution, I have no idea what it has to do with creationism at all. You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.

Congrats, you finally get it.  Evolution has nothing to do with creationism, to repeat myself ad nauseum.  Creationism is a completely bogus concept dreamed up in response to widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution, out of the misguided & misplaced fear that its general acceptance would somehow undermine Christian beliefs about the origins of life, to which the theory does not speak.  The theory of evolution did not develop for the purpose of disproving the Bible or any religious belief, which is what many creationists seem to think.

on Dec 29, 2008

I recommend you read Richard Dawkins' books. He explains these things very well.

But as I know my Creationists you will probably just ignore everything I have said and come back with another ridiculous claim about evolution being about "species changing into other species" and "probability". Some people don't learn.

Hmmmm......let me think......believe Dawkins or God?

Do we trust the trustworthy Creator Who cannot decieve or be deceived...Who was present at the Creation events, Who ensured that a partial account of Creation was revealed to the writer, and Who was present on Calvary paying the dreadful ransom for fallen man......OR do we believe a modern fallible human being who wasn't there at Creation and who can easily reach incorrect and biased conclusions about past events?  

 

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

We've certainly discovered that "evolution" is a confusing term and that's because Evolution is a lie embedded in truth.

What utter nonsense.

on Dec 29, 2008

do we believe a modern fallible human being who wasn't there at Creation and who can easily reach incorrect and biased conclusions about past events?

Sorry, but the Bible was written by such fallible & fallen men.  That argument eats itself.

on Dec 29, 2008

Daiwa posts:

Come to think of it, I did see a T. rex just the other day. Shit, what was I thinking? Creationism must be the one & only truth.

Goodness....dinosaurs still exist.

Can we agree that MicroEvolution is a process or development  unfolding in time?

Experience shows that process can go in both directions, right?

Paleontologically speaking, let's consider reptiles....which are nothing but little dinosaurs wouldn't you agree?

Dinosausr, the once great huge reptiles evolution resulted.....they still live with us today, without major change, only as tiny lizards, crocodiles, alligators, etc.

 

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Sorry, but the Bible was written by such fallible & fallen men. That argument eats itself.

All the books of the Holy Bible have God, the Holy Spirit as their Principal Author....although He Himself did not write them. The Holy Spirit inspired the human authors to write down what He wanted them to write and He guided them to the extent that they wrote faithfully what they had been taught. This working together of Almighty God and man in the writing of the books of the Bible is called inspiration. Everything that's written is inspired of God...that why we call the Bible the "Word of God"...and from that we know it's true. Absolute truth....what a wonderful gift from God to us.

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

All the books of the Holy Bible have God, the Holy Spirit as their Principal Author....although He Himself did not write them. The Holy Spirit inspired the human authors to write down what He wanted them to write and He guided them to the extent that they wrote faithfully what they had been taught. This working together of Almighty God and man in the writing of the books of the Bible is called inspiration. Everything that's written is inspired of God...that why we call the Bible the "Word of God"...and from that we know it's true. Absolute truth....what a wonderful gift from God to us.

That is your belief, lula, one you are welcome to hold.  It is not a scientific argument.  There is no proof that God guided them and that the English language words we see in our Bible are the literal ones God intended us to see - there can be no such proof, hence the entire notion of faith.

on Dec 29, 2008

Dinosausr, the once great huge reptiles evolution resulted.....they still live with us today, without major change, only as tiny lizards, crocodiles, alligators, etc.

See this is why I can't not read what you write on this Lula, sometimes it's just too funny. Obviously dinosaurs didn't evolve into lizards or there would be transitional fossils. That would also be clear evidence of speciation right?  Wait weren't crocodiles and alligators prehistoric, no that can't be right fossils lie.

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Sorry, but the Bible was written by such fallible & fallen men. That argument eats itself.

I agree the Bible was written by fallible human writers.

Lula posts:

All the books of the Holy Bible have God, the Holy Spirit as their Principal Author....although He Himself did not write them. The Holy Spirit inspired the human authors to write down what He wanted them to write and He guided them to the extent that they wrote faithfully what they had been taught. This working together of Almighty God and man in the writing of the books of the Bible is called inspiration. Everything that's written is inspired of God...that why we call the Bible the "Word of God"...and from that we know it's true. Absolute truth....what a wonderful gift from God to us.

That is your belief, lula, one you are welcome to hold. It is not a scientific argument. There is no proof that God guided them and that the English language words we see in our Bible are the literal ones God intended us to see - there can be no such proof, hence the entire notion of faith.

As to the inspiration of the Holy Bible, it's not only my belief...it happens to also be the belief of billions of people all over the world.

All I know is that from reading God's account of Genesis with Him explaining the way things went down "in the beginning" and  then link that to modern genetics which seems to confirm that DNA was designed by God so that only variety within "kind" can occur.  With that, the objective truth now seems clear....Macro-Evolution did not occur because it cannot occur.

 

 

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Well, I've done what I can.  With your definition of evolution, I have no idea what it has to do with creationism at all.  You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.

I suppose you should read up on evolution.

It has nothing to do with the "creation of life per se" element of Creationism. It's only about how life transformed into so many species.

 

on Dec 29, 2008

As to the inspiration of the Holy Bible, it's not only my belief...it happens to also be the belief of billions of people all over the world.

Yes. And there there are billions who believe something else.

And whenever we find a new manuscript we have to figure out which known version of the Bible is the word of G-d. Is it the Septuagint? The dead sea scrolls? Other inscriptions found? The Sumerian legends that tell the same stories and are older than the Torah? It's hard to say.

But if you read the Bible you will find that it doesn't say anything about evolution one way or the other. It just says that G-d created. It doesn't say how.

Lula, for the last time, and may your "Christian honesty" which you so often cite help you with this: There is NO "microevolution" and "macroevolution". There is no known mechanism that would stop evolution at whatever limit you want to define. All Darwinian evolution is what you would call "microevolution". But there is no mechanism that would make the process stop.

Let this be a test of the "Christian principle of honesty". If I find you pretending one more time that you weren't told about that, I'll know how important the "Christian principle of honesty" is to you.

And we are done.

 

42 PagesFirst 21 22 23 24 25  Last