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

Expelled is one great movie.

Wrong.

HORRID AND UNSCIENTIFIC, a slap in the face of true journalism and rational thought.

Embarrassing.

on Dec 30, 2008

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.

More apples/oranges false comparisons.

Evolution does not require or 'call for' faith in any external influences, it only requires study.

I agree, creationism begins (and ends) with Divine faith.

Evolution did not begin with human faith, it began with observation of the real world.

on Dec 30, 2008

ignore teaching alternatives branding them religion and off limits

Because they are religion, not 'teaching alternatives,' and should be off limits.  Is your God so weak & lame he can't teach them divinely through parents and the church?  Is your God so powerless, cowering before the false god of Evolution?  If God's in charge of this rodeo, how the heck did the notion of evolution ever occur to anyone?

Wait, I can hear it coming already...   Temptation?...   Could it be... Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatan?

on Dec 30, 2008

Could it be... Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatan?

Zee Deveel made Darwin do it.

on Dec 31, 2008

this reminds me when some state voted against ID, some minister was on the news saying that they have voted for SATAN and have voted god out of their state.

Yes, atheists are really just pawns of satan. They are not REALLY atheists, they are SATANIST! (also, buy harry potter books to burn them (making JRR more money and getting more of them printed), and harass DnD players because it is teaching kids magic!)

on Dec 31, 2008

PS. ironically, dawkins was invited to see the premiere of expelled, from which he was expelled (well, actually not allowed entry) at the request of ben stein. pretty funny and ironic actually

I love it how you keep on latching at authority figures. I like the way dawkings phrases some things, I disagree with others, but I understood evolution long before I heard of him, and I honestly couldn't give a rats ass if he decided to disavow it tommorow.

He himself redicules the faith based approach with some parody examples:

1. (regular scientific method) after examining examining the evidence found in upper layers of <blah blah list of evidence> we conclude that a meteor killed the dinasaurs... pretty normal right?

2. (here the crazy starts) The dean of the darwinians has delcared that ALL LOYAL darwinians must hereforth beleive that a meteor killed the dinosaurs.

3. It has been privately revealed to the bishop of organic chemistry that a meteor killed the dinosaurs.

4. While meditating, ranking members of the sect of scientism have been divinely inspired with the knowledge that a meteor killed the dinosaurs...

And so on...

Technically you COULD reach the conclusion that god is real with scientific reasoning. And I know people who have FAITH in scientists (and care only for who said what, rather than taking a scientific approach). But nobody does, religions preach FAITH over REASON because faith keeps people in line. If people start asking questions they might become atheists, they might convert to a different sect, they might START their own different sect... etc...

on Dec 31, 2008

Put up all this so called evidence to the contrary.

The idea the universe is billions of years old and the earth is hundreds of millions of years old comes from false science

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

 

wellllll...

 

i hadda go back a bit to find the blog in which lil ole danielost (who seems to have disappeared thankfully) claimed he could prove our planet was only about as old as lula claims it to be based on his complete ignorance of the stratification revealed in the grand canyon which he offered as evidence for the great flood.

 

i posted the following in response.  it received no comment whatsover--neither from him nor lula (who was another party to that discussion) nor any of the others of you whose faith is so shamefully feeble it drives you to corrupt the very essence of faith by insisting it's not necessary because you have proof.   yall musta forgotten proof is the currency of skeptics and unbelievers.  true believers can't be swayed by mere evidence or facts.

in any event, here's what i posted then.

lil lost dani pronounced:

on Dec 31, 2008

6...In 1861, L:ouis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation...that life cannot arise from non-living materials.

who was it proposed that spontaneous generation theory btw? who propogated it for over 2000 years, most of those having passed during the time when the church's authority in all matters was paramount.

 

was the origin of life so casually considered by the great minds of the church not one of them refuted--much less condemned or murdered anyone who remained convinced--the possibility maggots brought themselves into being?

on Dec 31, 2008

who was it proposed that spontaneous generation theory btw? who propogated it for over 2000 years, most of those having passed during the time when the church's authority in all matters was paramount.

Evolution claims that one lifeform evolves from another.

Creationists claim that lifeforms came to be from thin air.

Creationists also believe that by demonstrating how lifeforms to not come to be from thin air, they have disproven evolution.

That's the weird part.

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Kingbee, that doesn't work.

If you release too much actual science into a Creationist, she will shut down for a minute, ignore everything you said based on the idea that the world cannot be so complicated that she cannot understand it, reset, and start again pretending never to have been told of whatever fact it was you tried to convey.

Creationists are not built for complicated subjects. "Some sort of magical being created the world" is the most complicated explanation they can understand without special coaching.

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Creationists claim that lifeforms came to be from thin air.

Leauki,

Egads! .....it's the 414th post of your blog on Creationism....It's time to get it right.....Creationists claim that all lifeforms came to be per Genesis "in the beginning" from the One Holy Almighty Creator God, and only from Him. Mankind is a special creation with an eternal soul.

That is what Evolution Theory denies.  

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Creationists claim that all lifeforms came to be per Genesis "in the beginning" from the One Holy Almighty Creator God, and only from Him. Mankind is a special creation with an eternal soul.

So as I said, Creationists claim that lifeforms came to be from thin air.

And despite the fact thart they cannot reproduce the trick in a lab to any extent AND cannot explain how this "god" thing works, they insist that Creationism is a "science".

 

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Papa Smurf created all animals!

As scientific as Creationism. Should be taught in schools.

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Evolution claims that one lifeform evolves from another.

Exactly.....Atheists took Darwin's natural selection and other intellectual levers in an attempt to pry God from His Throne and ran for a touchdown.....but didn't quite make it.....for true science and right reason finds God to be the Creator and final end of mankind.

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Creationists also believe that by demonstrating how lifeforms to not come to be from thin air, they have disproven evolution.

That's the weird part. 

Well, of course it is weird to you, you think that creationism and evolution are totally unrelated.  Of course, I might remind you that it was you who brought up evolution in the first place, in the original post, as being a superior alternative to creationism.  That seems pretty silly to me if you actually thought they had nothing to do with each other.

So really the only problem you must have with creationism is that creationists say evolution couldn't explain how all of our different species originated.

For KFC:

... 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)....

Genetic limits = lack of information.  As Lulapilgrim said, one kind of creature or organism cannot evolve into another (i.e. a reptile will always be a reptile) because the reptile doesn't have the genetic code necessary for the change.  A reptile has no genetic code for hollow bones, wings, etc.  In order for that change to be made, information must be provided.  Assuming there is no supreme God, only random mistakes in gene copying and/or mutations can create this information.

As it is that I don't think genetic mutations are beneficial (as your son states), that creates a pretty solid species barrier or "genetic limit."  The information to continue simply doesn't exist within the creature.

42 PagesFirst 26 27 28 29 30  Last