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 27)
42 PagesFirst 25 26 27 28 29  Last
on Dec 30, 2008

IQ -

The fact that some person happens to hold a particular view with which I agree doesn't mean I agree with everything that person thinks or believes (e.g., you & I agree on AGW).  Dawkins is wrong if he thinks evolutionary theory proves that there is no God, because it can't.  He can argue that and conclude so if he wishes, but it's not based on proof any more than Lula's conclusion from reading the Bible that there is a God - both require a leap over a great chasm of the unknown (faith).

on Dec 30, 2008

Artisym posts # 1

Saying that God did it all is so much more easy and comfortable

Saying that God did it all "in the beginning" is also speaking the truth.

And there's the rub and the major difference between believing Evolution Theory or Special Creation.  

If it is as Genesis says it is, if Special Creation is true, then people were specially created by God. Becasue God is the Creator and we are the created, God gets to make the rules of right and wrong on how we are to live.

If Evolution Theory is true and mankind "evolved" from amoebas to animals, then man is liberated from God's standards of right and wrong, is sufficient in himself and answerable to only his own intellect and will. The autonomous individual determines what truth and reality as a guide for moral action. In short, there is no absolute right and wrong.    

on Dec 30, 2008

DAIWA POSTS:

Dawkins is wrong if he thinks evolutionary theory proves that there is no God, because it can't.

It seems we are getting worked up over semantics.....It's not that Dawkins thinks ET proves there is no God.... Rather, it's that Evolution Theory is based upon the atheisitic notion there is no God in the process.   

on Dec 30, 2008

Daiwa posts:

He can argue that and conclude so if he wishes, but it's not based on proof any more than Lula's conclusion from reading the Bible that there is a God - both require a leap over a great chasm of the unknown (faith).

I think there is proof that God exists but this is getting off topic.

As for faith and since neither Evolution Theory nor Special Creation is an event that can be repeated in a laboratory, I said this in post #16.....



So both Evolution and Creationism call for belief by both faith and study. Faith proceeds all study. Creationism begins with Divine faith (in the Genesis account)that cannot deceive, whereas Evolution begins with human faith that is fallible.

Faith isn't blind submission to the unknowable. Rather, it's an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye, the acceptance of a truth upon the authority of someone else. In Creationism, it's faith in Divine authority, taking God at His word. God was the only One there at the beginning. In Evolution it's dependence upon human authority that may or may not be right despite its personal integrity.

 

 

on Dec 30, 2008

lula posts:

Any honest examination reveals science has no proof at all to contracdict religion and the existence of God.

Leauki posts #382

Lula doesn't know what science is.

And you do when you say.....

science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world

I've already named some Creationist scientists who found scientific truth....and now in contrast, let's list some evolutionary philosophers..who sat in their armchairs theorizing......theorizing......snore, theorizing.....

1.....In 1734, Emmanuel Swedenberg was a do nothing expert who theorized that a rapid rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed he got the idea from spirits in a seance!!! Hmmm...nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source!   

2.....Following this, in the late 1700s a dissolute philosopher,  Compte de Buffon, theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun which became our planet. Of course, there was never any evidence of his theory.

 3....In 1809, Jean -Baptist Lamarck made a name for himself theorizing....He laid the foundation for modern evolutionary theory with his concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics" (you know he's the one who declared that giraffes got their long necks from stretching it to reach for food! and that birds who lived in water grew webbed feet....Wait a minute....I guess you are right .....science at least this kind of science is not about finding the truth!!!!

4....Charles Lyell spent a great time theorizingand became the basis for evolutionary on sedimentary strata....even though 20th century discoveries in radiodating, missing strata and strata "overthrusts" have completely nullified his theory. In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to lie about the facts about the erosion time of Niagra Falls...He changed erosion of 3 feet a year to one foot a year which would have meant the Falls had been flowing for 35,000 years when in truth the math takes us back 7-9,000 years which would have been expected after the Great Flood. 

 

 

 

 

on Dec 30, 2008

A master of rationalization.  Bravo.

 

Were I to convert to Christianity, die, and spend an eternity with people who "think" (and I use the term loosely, thus the quotes) like this, I would find "heaven" to be particularly hellish.

 

So I reckon I'm screwed no matter who is right or what I believe.

on Dec 30, 2008

Hmm, well I would think that you have more to lose if we're right than we would if you're right.

on Dec 30, 2008

Daiwa, I never said you had to hold all of the beliefs that Dawkins does, or that evolution proves anything.  I stated that that is what he said and that his various opinions are generally popular among scientists.

on Dec 30, 2008

I have repeated it several times but they keep ignoring it... But they simply refuse to beleive in the existance of mutation despite clear evidence to its existance.

Ok, ok, ok....I see you want some attention Taltimir even tho you've ignored some of my comments to you including asking you for proof of your assertions.  I'll respond but there's a reason none of the creationists probably haven't responded thus far.  It's hard to follow your logic here.  I'll respond to what I can understand you're trying to say......giving it my best shot.....

1. In genesis god (refered to as plural) says that man gained equal wisdom to him by eating the fruit, and thus there is no scripture reason for us to be unable to comprehend things.

Genesis doesn't say that Adam and Eve "gained equal wisdom to him (God)"  God said that when they ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would surely die.  They were created good, and they only knew what was good.  When they ate from the tree they disobeyed God.  They now knew what evil was, because they had now acted evil.  Therefore, they could now know the diff between good and evil.  This knowledge didn't come because there was anything special about the fruit, but by their disobedience to God.  They now understood that obedience to God is good, and disobedience to God is evil.  They would surely die (i.e. begin the process of aging or dying) because disobedience (what is evil) is sin and sin leads to death.

The definition of sin, pure and simple is rebellion against God.  When they ate from that tree, they rebelled against God.  Rebellion, i.e. sin brings about death. 

Genetic limits = lack of information... ...

I had no idea what you mean by "genetic limits=lack of information."  So I asked my son tonight and he said he has no idea what you're saying either. 

Evolution:

1. there are genes (inhertable traits)

2. copying genes can be done inaccurately from one generation to the next, causing a change in genes.

3. more suitable genes allow a creature to survive, and thus are more likely to be passed on.

4. statistically the above means most species will have their genes change over time to suit their environment, however they would be rare exception, thats how statistics work)

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.

My Son wrote the following in answering you since I figured he'd know more about this then I would.........

All scientists (creationist or otherwise) believe in mutations. A mutation by definition is an alteration in the DNA sequence. Everyone accepts that this occurs. Where creationists and evolutionists differ is this: evolutionists believe that mutations can lead to an increase in genetic information and thus lead to the development of new structures and features (an addition of information to the genome); creationists believe that this cannot happen (they believe this always causes a deletion of information from the genome). you can alter and artificially add information to a genome in the lab (e.g., the development of transgenic mice), but this is artificial manipulation- not evolution. both creationists and evolutionists also believe that natural selection can play a role in selecting particular traits (or genes) in a given population that might allow certain individuals to survive (i.e., survival of the fittest). creationists DO believe that "mistakes" can occur during "gene copy" and create an entirely new gene. HOWEVER, creationists believe that this "new gene" will either not function properly or it will be non-functional. for example: there are mutations in ion channel genes (its called a channelopathy). The DNA still codes for RNA and a protein is made and inserted into the membrane of a cell, however the channel does not function properly (e.g., there is improper selective gating of the channel).

Or is ignoring those posts the same as ignoring the proof so readily available in order to stick by your faith?

It's not that we're ignoring it's that you're not being very clear and concise in your posting.  I did my best but am unsure if I answered you correctly or not. 

on Dec 30, 2008

but it's not based on proof any more than Lula's conclusion from reading the Bible that there is a God - both require a leap over a great chasm of the unknown (faith).

This sums it up perfectly Daiwa.  Both have to be taken by faith.  I agree with you on this one! 

It all starts with our biases. 

 

 

on Dec 30, 2008

Dr. Dawkins in which he says that belief in evolution does lead to atheism.

This is true.  I heard him say this......I'd like to see that movie again.  He said more than that and I'm trying to put it in context but I can't remember.....something about the more you believe in evolution the less you believe about God?  That Evolution has a way of killing faith in God? 

Ya, I can see that happening. 

on Dec 30, 2008

OckhamsRazor
A master of rationalization.  Bravo.

 

Were I to convert to Christianity, die, and spend an eternity with people who "think" (and I use the term loosely, thus the quotes) like this, I would find "heaven" to be particularly hellish.

 

So I reckon I'm screwed no matter who is right or what I believe.

that has always been a pet peeve of mine, every religion says that either the gods are cruel and there is nothing to expect after death, or that you will be lumped with like minded individuals. And if heaven is full of those kind of people it sounds like a hell to me.

on Dec 30, 2008

If Evolution Theory is true and mankind "evolved" from amoebas to animals, then man is liberated from God's standards of right and wrong, is sufficient in himself and answerable to only his own intellect and will. The autonomous individual determines what truth and reality as a guide for moral action. In short, there is no absolute right and wrong.

Unless of course evolution occured because god wanted it to. If god made us using something as complex as genes rather then baking us out of clay. The problem isn't evolution, its your insistence of gods magic being uncomplex.

As an atheist I would say that is one of the issues one has to contend me, I concluded that there is Good and there is Evil, and they are not very relative at all. if anything I find the oversimplifications in religion laughable and often time distasteful (there are a lot of "right" in religion that is pure evil, and a lot of "wrong" that isn't.)

on Dec 30, 2008

but it's not based on proof any more than Lula's conclusion from reading the Bible that there is a God - both require a leap over a great chasm of the unknown (faith).

This sums it up perfectly Daiwa. Both have to be taken by faith. I agree with you on this one!

It all starts with our biases.

As long as you understand that I'm talking about Dawkins' conclusion, not evolution itself.

on Dec 30, 2008

IQ posts:

evolution is largely a way to promote atheism. If you haven't seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which I mentioned earlier, it has an interview with Dr. Dawkins in which he says that belief in evolution does lead to atheism. As he is an evolutionist (and a prominent one at that), I am inclined to agree with him. Not only that, but his beliefs led him to write an entire book on how God is a myth.

Yes, Expelled is one great movie. Ben Stein did a great job traveling the world interviewing people with both view points. As I recall, Dawkins was quite candid about the connection between atheism and evolutionary theory. Atheists have quite a stake in perpetuating the concept of evolutionary naturalism which is essentially equivalent to atheism.

I think the idea that all life originated through natural processes as opposed to supernatural processes is an atheistic religious concept held by faith. Yet, all government schools teach it to unwary children at taxpayer expense, with textbooks that repeat information long known to be false, and completely ignore teaching alternatives branding them religion and off limits.

 

42 PagesFirst 25 26 27 28 29  Last