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 31)
42 PagesFirst 29 30 31 32 33  Last
on Jan 01, 2009

lulapilgrim
I know, I know. I know where, when and by Whom!

You mean you BELEIVE where. Also, that beleif has nothing to do with evolution, evolution does not say life came from rocks (which creationists proclaim, pretty ironic because according to creationists human came from dust). Evolution deals with the origin of species, not the origin of life.

However, there are other scientists who work on the question of the origin of life. But your beleif counters those too.

on Jan 01, 2009

It's both a mis-use and misrepresentation to think and say that true science excludes belief in God.

Classic mis-quote, misdirection play - you just insist on telling people what they think or say when they've thought or said no such thing.

taltimir did not say 'belief in God.'  He said 'belief.'  He's correct - the scientific method cannot be applied to religious beliefs.  And he didn't say science 'excludes' anything.  Absolutely nothing about science 'excludes a belief in God.'  I'd hazzard a guess that the majority, perhaps a large majority, of scientists hold a belief in one God or another.  No matter how hard you try to force it, there is nothing mutually exclusive about science and a belief in God.  But then, setting up false enemies has been a tactic used by the righteous imagining threats throughout human history - you come from a long line of bullshit artists, lula.  It's not actually necessary to perpetuate this myth of persecution to which you so vehemently cling.

Be wary, though - just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean we're not out to get ya.

on Jan 01, 2009

This reads like you are buying into what's commonly called "Theistic Evolution".

No, as I said in my post, it is something that I came up with by myself when I was about 10. I was not influenced by other people's thinking on this.

Besides that, the weight of modern scientific evidence, particularly with its light shed on the existence of the complexities of DNA, has effectively ruled out Evolution as a credible means used by God.

You sound like one of the Global Warming Alarmists with that statement. I've read nothing that corroborates your claim.

on Jan 01, 2009

Great. Please introduce to him to us and let him demonstrate how to do it!

All you have to do is read Genesis 1 & 2, Isaias 45:5, also provides some vital clues about the events of Creation. Although they are true, historical and foundational, sorry, God didn't reveal scientific exactitude in how He created the universe and all life forms. He left that knowledge to be sought after and discovered by us and that may not be accomplished this side of Heaven.

And this should not be surprising becasue after all, even gravity and energy isn't yet fully understood.   

 

  

on Jan 01, 2009
Bunnahabhain posts:

I always found the scripture readings to be inspirational, and even at a young age, I felt that I was getting an understanding of God's word that was going over most adult's heads.


When I first heard about evolution, it made perfect sense to me, and meshed perfectly with the scriptures.

At the age of 10 or so, it was clear to me that God created the Universe, and the we came to be in the form that we are through the process of evolution. A process that God created himself.

As I grew older, and began to learn about black holes, quarks, and the big bang theory, things became even clearer - God created the Universe, via the big bang, and over billions of years the galaxies and stars and planets were formed. Life on Earth began much later, but all guided by God, from the first primordial soup to what we have today.

If I read you correctly, you're saying that your ancestors came from the first primordial soup and came to be in their human form through the process of Evolution and that meshes perfectly with the Scriptures?

Hmmm...according to Scripture we are all descended from Adam and Eve who were created in God's Image and Likeness (no primordial soup here!).

 

 

on Jan 01, 2009

according to the scripture, the earth is 6000 years old, the center of the universe, flat, and the sun revolves around it.

Also god created eve from clay (like adam) at first, but then created her again from his rib. Which is just one of many examples of conflicting accounts in the scriptures.

Obviously he is saying that he is looking at the MEANING of the scriptures rather than taking them LITERALLY.

on Jan 01, 2009

as daiwa said... science exludes beleif.But it is not like you have a secret "science" club that only atheists are allowed into. Anything in which you do not use beleif, but instead use evidence and experimentation is science. Some things, like religion, can not be approached scientifically, I have no proof that god does or does NOT exist. Thus atheism is my beleif that he doesn't, just like you beleive he does. But on matters of the physical (rather than the metaphysical), I can use science.

on Jan 02, 2009



All you have to do is read Genesis 1 & 2, Isaias 45:5, also provides some vital clues about the events of Creation.



I have read and studied Genesis to a much greater degree than you, but I have been unable to reproduce the claimed results.

So I went to the experts and saw how far they came. This is what the Catholic Church came up with:



According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution



That didn't satisfy me because those guys also believe that G-d had a son, so I asked the other experts and found this:




While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers.



That's from the Rabbinical Council of America.

Seems like neither body was able to reproduce the results and both seem to disagree with your reading of Genesis.

Hm...

on Jan 02, 2009

Hmmm...according to Scripture we are all descended from Adam and Eve who were created in God's Image and Likeness (no primordial soup here!).

You are misreading scripture. It's not as specific as you claim it is.

Scripture doesn't speak of a guy named "Adam", scripture speaks of "haAdam", which is Hebrew for "the man" (that's "man" as in "mankind"). Genesis says in very few words (it reads like a children's book) that "man" (not a particular individual) was created out of red earth ("adama").

Actual names of individuals are rarely preceeded by a definitive article, not in Hebrew and not in English either. "The Lula" is just not the way to refer to a woman named "Lula".

"Eve" (actually "Hava") is not a name either. It means "the living".

Both words are older than the Bible and also exist in other Semitic languages, as far as I know.

 

on Jan 02, 2009

Hey if evolution is true...will my toe jam turn into higher beings....bet they will be stinky!

on Jan 02, 2009

Nice article for what it is worth. I happen to agree completely with the argument. As far as I'm concerned institutionalized religion is a vestigial social structure. Humanity would be far better off without it - of any flavor.

on Jan 02, 2009

LEAUKI posts:

Evolution claims that one lifeform evolves from another.

KFC POSTS:

so Leauki where did the FIRST lifeform come from?

LULA POSTS: #448

I know, I know. I know where, when and by Whom!

LEAUKI posts:

Great. Please introduce to him to us and let him demonstrate how to do it!

LULA posts:

All you have to do is read Genesis 1 & 2, Isaias 45:5, also provides some vital clues about the events of Creation. Although they are true, historical and foundational, sorry, God didn't reveal scientific exactitude in how He created the universe and all life forms. He left that knowledge to be sought after and discovered by us and that may not be accomplished this side of Heaven.

LEAUKI posts #458



I have read and studied Genesis to a much greater degree than you, but I have been unable to reproduce the claimed results.

LEAUKI, that's just it.....according to Genesis God created man with a rational soul and no one of His created will ever be able to reproduce the results of what God does according to Genesis...So, WHAT CONSTITUTES A HUMAN BEING THAT NO AMOUNT OF EVOLUTIONARY NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, MUTATION AND TIME CAN DELIVER? It's the soul the principle of life in any particular living thing. It's a fool and a fool's game to try or think that man ever will be able to reproduce the claimed results. What's so fascinating though, is that God does use us to pro-create with Him. We furnish the natural part and He furnishes the supernatural part...the part created in His image and likeness....eternal life in the soul.

on Jan 02, 2009

LEAUKI, that's just it.....according to Genesis God created man with a rational soul and no one of His created will ever be able to reproduce the results of what God does according to Genesis

In that case knowledge of the process (or that we cannot repeat it) is useless from a scientific point of view.

I'd rather have students learn about science and evolution than "you can't do it".

 

on Jan 02, 2009

What do you people (Lula and TA) do to JU that they always mess up the fonts or formatting???

 

on Jan 02, 2009

What do you people (Lula and TA) do to JU that they always mess up the fonts or formatting???

They're probably copying from a MS Word or some other editor that has its own formatting that confuses and upsets JU.

42 PagesFirst 29 30 31 32 33  Last