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 6)
42 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Jun 20, 2008
Christian scientists are continually collecting data and experimenting according to the scientific method in order to improve upon their understanding of the Biblical hypothesis that states God created in six days 6 to 10,000 years ago through. Thus, while the creationism hypothesis is not being altered, it is being used as a model system for
experimentation.


The Christian Science church has nothing to do with science nor any scientific research. Now you're simply throwing out a bunch of crap because I know an aweful lot about the Church. My father grew up in a Christian Science family.....Take your BS elsewhere. The Science in their name comes from believing in the spiritual as opposed to the material. They believe we can be healed spiritually as opposed to medical science. I watched several of my relatives die because they would not allow certain or any medical treatment.

on Jun 20, 2008
I have no problem with creationism or the teaching of creationism, but I know just as much as economic theory doesn't belong in a science class neither does creationism.


What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model? Why should an evolution only syllabus be imposed in the classroom as though only naturalism qualifies as science?

With respect to typology, the reality of entropy, genetics and biochemical research, the Creation model explains the data far better than does Evolution theory.
on Jun 21, 2008

The answer is NO but I know why you're asking.

 

Why am I asking?  Why does your profile say you are?

on Jun 21, 2008

What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model?

 

Define the creation model, Lula.  One paragraph please.

on Jun 21, 2008
What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model?


It has nothing to do with fear. They are not scientific arguments is the problem.

The importance of teaching scientific theory is that you take a specific theory and do research to build on that theory to discover something that is materially useful. For example the evolution theory is the basis for a lot of genetic and dna study.

The theory of relativity is the basis of a lot of engineering science


Creationism theory brings scientific study nowhere but to a dead end. You can't build on it because the "intelligent designer" is supernatural. It isn't science.
on Jun 21, 2008
Why am I asking? Why does your profile say you are?


you answered your own question: Profile.

I can't remember why. I think way back when I started I just didn't want to put down too much personal information and I just picked a birth year.

Define the creation model, Lula.


In the beginning......God created.

For example the evolution theory is the basis for a lot of genetic and dna study.


but that doesn't contadict the creation theory either. Creationists believe in DNA..heck we have the whole pictue of God taking Adam's dna to make Eve. It was there all along. Way before we even knew what DNA was. There is some science in scripture that explains the natural world.

Creationism theory brings scientific study nowhere but to a dead end. You can't build on it because the "intelligent designer" is supernatural. It isn't science.


NEITHER is the Evolution theory. Both are based on beliefs.

on Jun 21, 2008
The Christian Science church has nothing to do with science nor any scientific research. Now you're simply throwing out a bunch of crap because I know an aweful lot about the Church. My father grew up in a Christian Science family.....Take your BS elsewhere. The Science in their name comes from believing in the spiritual as opposed to the material. They believe we can be healed spiritually as opposed to medical science. I watched several of my relatives die because they would not allow certain or any medical treatment.


I am NOT talking about CHRISTIAN SCIENCE the religious denomination.

I actually have NOTHING to do with nor do I beieve their theology one twit.

So I'm not throwing any crap. You're assumming too much and very defensive.

I would tell anyone in that denomination to turn and run the other way...and if you knew anything about me at all you'd know this....like the other regulars here on JU.

on Jun 21, 2008
There is no proof as to the origin from which evolution began but evolution is a theory and as such much is now known as to how things evolve.

I have no problem with creationism or the teaching of creationism, but I know just as much as economic theory doesn't belong in a science class neither does creationism.


Right there is no proof. So why are we teaching it as if it's fact? Creationism has no proof so why not teach it since it has the same criteria as the Evolutionary Theory? Both are based on faith.

The reason you believe it shouldn't belong in Science Class is because everyone is telling you it doesn't. Both are just as viable theories to teach.

Where life begain is all based on interpretation of the evidence...not Science.





on Jun 21, 2008
on Jun 21, 2008
Define the creation model, Lula. One paragraph please.


Just read Genesis Ock. And then, realize that in view of how science developed out of the theological premises and institutions of Christianity. Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle etc. all understood the compatility between science and religion.

The Creation model begins with the earlier presupposition that the universe and all that's in it reflects Almighty God. These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.

God is the Author of all nature and there must exist an authentic concordism between true empirical science and the historical events recorded in Genesis. Creation researchers endeavor to discern the objective truth about these events.





on Jun 21, 2008
I would tell anyone in that denomination to turn and run the other way...and if you knew anything about me at all you'd know this....like the other regulars here on JU.


I'll vouch for that.   
on Jun 21, 2008
For example the evolution theory is the basis for a lot of genetic and dna study.


This is also true of Creation theory.

on Jun 21, 2008
NEITHER is the Evolution theory. Both are based on beliefs.


Evolution theory is based on science and not the same belief system as creationism. You simply have to read about the vast amount of science that has been done since the first theory of evolution was put forth. It predates even Darwin's theory and goes to present day showing how the theory itself has changed as well as what scientific discoveries have been made in light of the theory.

on Jun 21, 2008
Evolution theory is based on science and not the same belief system as creationism. You simply have to read about the vast amount of science that has been done since the first theory of evolution was put forth


based on Science...yes. Science not neccesarily because it can't be proven with scientific observation. It's an interpretation of Science. It's not the same as Creationism....agree with you.

There is no contradiction between true Science and Chrisitianity. They get along quite well regardless of what you've been told by the seculars.

There is contradiction between the Evolutionary Theory as we know it and Christianity.They are opposing beliefs. Both are systems built on faith regarding the evidence. One looks at the evidence and sees Dawrinian Theory and another looks at the evidence and sees Creationism as outlined in the book of Genesis, written by Moses.

Therein likes the debate. So why is one taught and the other not taught?

Stubby

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out and get back to you.

on Jun 21, 2008

The Creation model begins with the earlier presupposition that the universe and all that's in it reflects Almighty God. These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.

 

Really?  So how does science explain how God created everything?  How did he make atoms?  How did he make gravity?  How did he do all this?  I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow.  Please enlighten me.

 

42 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last