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 29)
42 PagesFirst 27 28 29 30 31  Last
on Dec 31, 2008

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.

Try and pretend like you have at least some curiosity about all this around us and then multiply that by a hundred. That's how a scientist and most the rest of us feel for that matter. Creationist are saying "you can't know the answer to the question of how life began on this planet, it is unknowable". And you think think their motivations are to kill God, Wow!

Even if somehow evolution was proven impossible and the theory abandoned creationism would not be the accepted scientific theory by default. Creationism will never ever be science. It can't now nor could it ever meet even the minimum requirements.

on Dec 31, 2008

Leauki -

Don't know whether to bless you or curse you for this thread.

Happy New Year, everyone.  May it be better than 2008.

on Dec 31, 2008

they insist that Creationism is a "science".

Hmmmm....honestly, although I use it, I'm uncomfortable with the word "Creationism"......I prefer Special Creation.

In a nutshell, I'd say Special Creation is belief that there is only one God..the Divine Trinity...the Infinite First Cause Who created all that exists, including space, time and matter. The concept of Special Creation can be certainly be discussed, investigated and studied by scientists. I call those believers in Special Creation "Creationists"...and scientists may or may not be Creationists.

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Well... Isn't that spaaaayshul?!?!  (God bless Dana Carvey)

on Dec 31, 2008

God bless you for being such a very charming person, Daiwa.

on Dec 31, 2008

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

I never brought up evolution as an alternative to Creationism.

It's not an "alternative" at all.

Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

 

and scientists may or may not be Creationists.

By that logic scientists could also be Smurfists.

(Smurfists believe that Papa Smurf created the world and all animals, except Lula and some diseases which were created by the god of malaria, Papa Smurf's nemesis.)

 

on Dec 31, 2008

... 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)....

Notice how the creationists always tell us what they think we think & not what we've told them we think?

Here's a suggestion for a rational statement to replace the one above:

Evolutionary theory postulates that genetic mutations regularly occur in all species over time.  That some confer survival benefit, some do not.  That some lead, through many subsequent beneficial mutations, to the gradual evolution of physical structures, such as appendages and sensory organs, larger & more intelligent brains, etc.  Mind the the time scale here - millions of years in ever, usually slowly but occasionally abruptly, changing environments which may be favorable or unfavorable to the survival of those mutations.  There is a massive amount of physical evidence in the fossil record and in the genomes of species to support this theory.  Creationists believe this cannot happen (they believe this always causes a deletion of information from the genome).

Notice I did not change a word of the language offered by the creationist in the original quote.

Now, let's look at that last claim, that mutations 'always' cause a deletion of information from the genome.  What exactly does that mean, scientifically?  If mutations do occur, which evolutionists & creationists appear to agree is the case, what happens to the organism whose genome has had 'information deleted?'  Does this mean that creationism is essentially evolution-in-reverse?  That all non-human creatures 'devolved' from humans, which have the 'highest' information in their genome?  Just what, exactly, is the scientific basis for the belief that mutations always cause 'deletion of information from the genome?'  What is the evidence suggesting that this is so?  (BTW, 'God put them there' is not a scientific explanation).

on Dec 31, 2008

(Smurfists believe that Papa Smurf created the world and all animals, except Lula and some diseases which were created by the god of malaria, Papa Smurf's nemesis.)

Personally, I'm just glad that Jeff the God of Biscuits still has some power in the material world.

on Dec 31, 2008

Personally, I'm just glad that Jeff the God of Biscuits still has some power in the material world.

Are you trying to ban Smurfism from schools?

I think kids should be allowed to choose between learning science and Smurfology.

 

on Dec 31, 2008

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

LEAUKI POSTS: #426

I never brought up evolution as an alternative to Creationism.

It's not an "alternative" at all.

Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

Evidently, Leauki wants to get in a shooting match over the word "alternative" but he doesn't have a leg to stand on as he WRITES about science and evolution in first 3 paragraphs of his initial article:  

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.

Leauki seems to only be able to describe what science isn't!


Science is not an alternative to fairy tales.

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

True Science from microbiology to astrophysics is about finding truth and it's doing a great job in exposing the lies of textbook icons as evidence of proof of evolution such as the "Miller-Urey experiment", "Peppered Moths", "Haeckel's embryos", "Darwin's Tree of Life" and my favorite the "from Ape to Human" photos!

on Dec 31, 2008

No wonder you have such a hard time understanding how science works...

 

on Dec 31, 2008

No wonder you have such a hard time understanding how science works...

And you do? Especially when you say foolish things like:

By that logic scientists could also be Smurfists.

(Smurfists believe that Papa Smurf created the world and all animals, except Lula and some diseases which were created by the god of malaria, Papa Smurf's nemesis.)

 

on Dec 31, 2008

Especially when you say foolish things like:

You dare doubt the scientific theory that Papa Smurf created the world?

How dare you!

 

on Dec 31, 2008

May you all be blessed with Christ's joy, peace and hope during the coming New Year!

on Dec 31, 2008

This topic is a joke.

How can you claim to be scientific and yet just fling mud everywhere?  Is that a rational and scientific way to get your point across?

42 PagesFirst 27 28 29 30 31  Last