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 37)
42 PagesFirst 35 36 37 38 39  Last
on Jan 08, 2009

KFC Kickin For Christ

Exapmle the Catholic Church is mocked by most other types of Christianity.


so what's your point?  Mocking is a bad thing, some religions mock each other so therefore all religions are bad? 

Atheists mock Christians.  Scientists mock Christians as well.  So does that make Atheists and Scientists bad as well? 

In fact Seth isn't that what you're doing as an Atheist? 

 

 

@KFC: I am just stating my views on religion.

on Jan 12, 2009

The theory of Evolution as taught in the schools is NOT science, only cloaked in Science.

How would you know? You never understood the theory.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

Yes Leauki, you have addressed my points.  You simply keep repeating something I already argued against before - replies #529 and #530 prove that much - and I for one am tired of quoting myself over and over just because you don't remember what I said earlier.

I do remember what you said earlier, I just remain in disagreement.

If you are used to people starting to agree with you after you _repeat_ (not _explain_, but _repeat_) your position you might have another problem.

on Jan 12, 2009

I have never met a Creationist who was willing to attack Darwinian evolution.

I have met several Creationists who attack a weird parody of evolution.

If evolution was "pseudo-science" one would assume that it would be possible at least for people to exist who both believe that evolution is "pseudo-science" AND be able to remember what Darwinisn evolution actually is.

The three most obvious differences between Darwinian evolution as taught in schools and godless heathen atheist secular pseudo-science (GHASP) as attacked by Creationists are those:

1. GHASP claims that one species changes into another and that it crosses "species borders" that cannot be crossed. Creationists claim (without proof) that "species borders" cannot be crossed and that hence GHASP is wrong. Real evolution claims that species borders do not exist, are never crossed, and that one species rarely ever changes into another but instead evolves into separate species without ever crossing a "species border".

There are not yo my knowledge any Creationists who have even understood why there is no "species border" let alone how one species can become two without crossing one.

2. GHASP is all about random chance. Creationists claim that something as complicated as, for example, a frog cannot come to be by random chance and that hence GHASP is wrong. Real evolution has nothing to do with chance.

I have never read a Creationist who understood why natural selection is not about chance, or at least acknowledged that the theory of evolution doesn't claim that it is.

3. GHASP  appears to explain how life started. Creationists claim that GHASP cannot explain how life started and hence GHASP is wrong. Real evolution doesn't make any claims about how life started.

Our local Creationists here also seem to be unable to say anything about evolution without mentioning at least one of the three features of GHASP mentioned above.

And that is why it surprises me that they can tell that evolution is "pseudo-science". They don't even know what evolution is.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

1.  I gave you a reason that species borders exist, and why they cannot be crossed.

2.  Evolution has to be about chance unless you believe something is guiding it.

3.  You're conveniently dodging the question of where life came from.

 

It just so happens that most creationists have to include at least one of the 3 features of "GHASP" because a majority of evolutionists think this way.  I would think that makes you the one in error - or are you saying it is possible for mainstream scientific thinking to be wrong?

on Jan 12, 2009

1.  I gave you a reason that species borders exist, and why they cannot be crossed.

And I told everyone that such borders don't exist and gave an explanation why not. In fact the theory of evolution explains why those borders don't exist.

 

2.  Evolution has to be about chance unless you believe something is guiding it.

No. You still don't understand it. Evolution is not about chance and never has been.

 

3.  You're conveniently dodging the question of where life came from.

And you are conveniently dodging the question of why Ernie's best friend is called Bert. However, both questions have nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

It just so happens that most creationists have to include at least one of the 3 features of "GHASP" because a majority of evolutionists think this way.

No. No evolutionists think that way. It's a Creationist misconception that any scientists thinks that way. I think it is based on an inability to understand evolution.

 

I would think that makes you the one in error - or are you saying it is possible for mainstream scientific thinking to be wrong?

It is. But in this case it is just you misrpresenting mainstream scientific thinking. As I said, you simply don't understand evolution. That's why you fall for those fallacies.

 

Didn't I just say that no Creationist can argue without using at least one of three misconceptions about evolution. And behold the Creationist who managed to rely on all three, even numbered.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

IQOfSpam,

Read this:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/334809/Creationism_and_Linguistics

It describes the evolution of languages and why there is no "language border" to be crossed when languages evolve and one language becomes two languages.

If you are confident that there is a "speciec border" that "cannot be crossed", please either identify the language border and explain why it cannot be crossed or feel free to admit that there is a method for how one thing can become two without crossing a "thing border", a method you didn't understand and didn't know about.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

The theory of Evolution as taught in the schools is NOT science, only cloaked in Science.

How would you know? You never understood the theory.

KFC and I both understand what schools are teaching (as well as what they are not teaching) more than you know. We are opposed to teaching Darwin's pseudo-scientific atheism of "amoeba to brute animal to mankind" natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors as scientific fact when it's no such thing. Natural selection is not evolution....mutation is not evolution....variety within kind is not evolution...change of an eco system is not evolution....growth to maturity is not evolution.

What we expect of the education systems is not too much...stop the intolerance and teach both sides of the debate.  Until and unless Darwinists come up with definitive, empirical proof of its claim, students should be taught both sides of the Orgins debate. Students should be told that the emergence of life in all its unimaginable and irreducible complexity can have been the result of creation according to an intelligent design.    

have never met a Creationist who was willing to attack Darwinian evolution.

I have met several Creationists who attack a weird parody of evolution.

There are 3 Jewish intellectuals (I won't call them Creationists) who severely challenged (I won't say attack) the academic tyranny of Darwinism in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Required".

In  this movie, the leading "lights" of Darwinism and scientific atheism (Richard Dawkins of Oxford, Daniel Dennet of Tufts, William Provine of Cornell, etc. ) make fools of themselves by displaying their lack of credible answers to Stein's most basic questions.

Stein interviews Dr Gerald Shroeder, a nuclear physicist of MIt and now professor at Hebrew University, and Dr. David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher whose latest book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions probably the best defense of religious faith against atheistic scientism ever written.

Remember, both KFC and I have said that ET is part truth and lie. In an interview, Dr. Berlinski explains that the centerpiece of Darwin's ET is empty becasue in fact is trivial truth. He says that even though there are all sorts of elaborate strategies designed to circumvent the objections, it doesn't get beyond, "que sera, sera", what survives, survives. He then explains Newton's Principia, and says with Newton's mechanics there is a wealth of detail, predictions that flow from the theory, but completely unlike Darwin's Theory gives no predictions. He says there is nothing wrong with looking and seeing at whatever survives, survives and whatever was, was, but we don't need a theory for that!

 

on Jan 12, 2009

There is a very large difference between languages and life.  Using language development as proof that there is no species border doesn't make sense.  Besides, even the most complex language is far simpler than even a basic living organism.

Do you remember my little speech about the mole developing a human eye?  The mole doesn't have the information necessary to make that eye, or even enough genomes that a mutation could result in said eye.  The mole doesn't have the information necessary.  Therefore, for evolution to create this eye, it would have to either use random chance or be guided by some process.  If evolution isn't about chance, then something must tell the mole what to do.

on Jan 12, 2009

And I told everyone that such borders don't exist and gave an explanation why not. In fact the theory of evolution explains why those borders don't exist.

And who is the fool for believing ET as though it was fact?

Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type (kind) and never from one type to another. It is the DNA code itself that is so complicated that erects the barrier, the great wall which cannot be crossed.

There is no evidence in all the history of the world that even 1 true new species has formed from other species, yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic changes would have had to occur multiply of thousands upon thousands of time.

on Jan 12, 2009

There is a very large difference between languages and life. 

Never claimed there wasn't. But I had to choose somthing simple enough to explain that one detail.

 

Using language development as proof that there is no species border doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does. Languages evolve and scecies evolve. And both do without crossing this so-called border.

 

Anyway, feel free to point out where the "border" is and why it cannot be crossed.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

And who is the fool for believing ET as though it was fact?

???

 

on Jan 12, 2009

There are 3 Jewish intellectuals (I won't call them Creationists) who severely challenged (I won't say attack) the academic tyranny of Darwinism in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Required".

Yes, I have heard about that movie.

Apparently they also managed to attack the parody.

Find me a Creationist who can manage to attack the actual theory (and not any of the weird parodies), and we can talk.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

make fools of themselves by displaying their lack of credible answers to Stein's most basic questions

Actually, I have seen some of those scenes. The Ben character doesn't even know enough about evolution to ask useful questions. And that he and his fans don't understand the answers doesn't surprise me. I have seen that here.

 

There is no evidence in all the history of the world that even 1 true new species has formed from other species

Make that "there is no evidence that YOU accept". There is lots of evidence of species that don't exist any more and species alive today that COULDN'T have been alive a long time ago (when we know the athmosphere was different).

We also keep find more fossils, but for some reason certain animals (like man) never are found among fossils a million years old and older... Hm...

 

on Jan 12, 2009

Therefore, for evolution to create this eye, it would have to either use random chance or be guided by some process.  If evolution isn't about chance, then something must tell the mole what to do.

No. You are assuming that there can only be two ways: chance and design. But you show no proof that that is so.

A sieve separates things based on size. Only small things can fall through. And while the size of things could be random, the mechanism by which the sieve decides what falls through is not random at all.

Evolution is similar. While the genetic changes that lead to different types of eyes are random, the survival of the fittest is not random. And such changes accumulate.

I really recommend you read Richard Dawkins' books. You can understand this. It's just not easy. Pseudo-science is easier.

 

Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type (kind) and never from one type to another.

And here we go again. It's irrelevant. The theory of evolution does NOT claim that one species changes into another. That's what scientists tell you. You just don't understand that they are not talking about how evolution doesn't work but about one of the principles of the theory.

Did you even read the article explaining how one type of thing can become two types of things without ever becoming another type of thing?

 

42 PagesFirst 35 36 37 38 39  Last