Except the truth is that people who deny all of evolution are not logically consitant. That is, they will act as if they believe in micro-evolution (though they will likely live as if they deny macro-evolution.)

And because of that, I basically ignore a complete rejection of ALL evolution from being part of the conversation. (since their actual behavior suggest that they don't believe it either.)

I'm pretty sure Raëlism is somewhat more complicated than that. The Extra-terrestrial creation is key to their belief system, certainly, but it also involves hedonism, sensuality, hierarchy, tithing, human cloning and the building of a "Third Temple" in the Middle East as an embassy for the "Elohim", their name for the aliens. There's also been quite a lot of controversy about their logo, which is a Star of David sort of intertwined with a swastika. I'm sure its obvious why that would be a problem.

But yeah, personally, it always seemed sort of silly to me, but if you want to believe it then obviously it's up to you, but it's not exactly a simple faith.

Yeah, that was way more detailed than it needed to be. Sorry for the hijack.

Well, I'd never heard of it before. And I'm not saying I'm converting or anything. I'm quite happy in my agnosticism, thank you.

Hehe, fair enough

Arguing creationilism, or its pseudo-scientific equivalent 'intelligent design' uses a new kind of logic. This new logic involves if you can't disprove it, it is true. Which does apply to the scientific method... if you interrupt it very loosely and ignore the idea of a theory vs fact. This is the central break in the argument.

Evolution happens, there is so much scientific proof that it is undeniable. Many Intelligent Design brains accept this fact. However, they like to look at gaps in the scientific record and say, "hey, this is so complex, God/Supernatural Designer must exist, and must of directed this function. The problem with putting 'God in the Gap' is that it tells people there is no point to study the gap, because they will never understand it.

The idea of an intelligent designer COULD be true. However, it can not be proven with the means available to science today, thus it is not a fact. Evolution is a fact, things evolve. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a Theory, because it tries to explain the means of evolution, it can not be completely proved, or completely disproved. However, there is still far more information for Darwin's Theory then there is for Intelligent Design, because Intelligent Design hinges on a metaphysical concept.


For a really good look at this debate, take a look at a documentary entitled "Flock of Dodos"

Mitbulls made the point that I can't "prove" evolution. That all "proof" of evolution is circumstantial. Let me say this in big letters because it's important:

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

There is no "proof" in science. There are models, theories, and evidence, and the idea is to find whatever mathematical models or theories best explain the evidence gathered so far. It never "proves" anything nor attempts to, and talking about "proof" is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Asking that we "prove" evolution so that you can believe in it isn't shifting the goalposts; it's putting them outside the playing field altogether.


I wasn't perfectly clear - Evolution explains away the need for deities within the domain of things that evolutionary biology explains. Obviously, knowledge of evolution does not prevent someone from believing in gravity elves; knowledge of physics prevents that. However, theistic evolutionists often seem to understand evolution completely, and even realise that the process works by itself... but they still tack God on to the issue of the complexity of life.

Evolution isn't "testable" in the sense that you can't bring it into a laboratory and test it (Except, you can, and biologists have, but that's another matter entirely.) Evolution however is testable in the sense that observation of data obtained from the natural world can lead us to conclusions about its truth or falsehood. Weaker forms of ID are not. ID proponents cannot provide ways in which animals that are intelligently designed would be different from animals that have evolved (Except for absurd contrivances like "irreducible complexity," an argument that has been thoroughly debunked). Weaker versions of ID (ID does not qualify as a theory; it is at best a hypothesis) are, like I said, not even wrong. They don't even merit a truth value, much like the question "Is justice up or sideways?"


See above. Let's change the game here, shall we? Instead of trying to argue your case by trying to "debunk" evolution, why don't you work the way science does and propose 1) A series of prepositions and 2) Arguments, backed by evidence, that make the case for what you were trying to prove in a way that is not a non sequitur. You seem to believe you can show creationism to be true by showing evolutionary biology to be false; that impression is obviously not true, and science (As well as people of good sense) will continue to understand evolution as the best approximation to reality we have (Although different people will view it as more or less accurate or complete) until there is a better model of reality, and you are not providing one.

http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=380

Leave Florida, isolate it, and start guided tours for money.

I could be wrong here, but I believe this is a straw man argument.

Its more like, "hey, this is so complex, there must be a non random reason for this, and requires more study."

You should know/remember that science as a field came about because people wanted to know HOW G-d did things, not just THAT he did things.

How is that relevant.

The claim was that god of the gaps makes people not want to learn more, and history has shown that to be the opposite of the case. It was the god of the gaps idea that initiated scientific research in the first place!

I agree with you Daganev, however this is the arguments they (Intelligent Design proponents) are using. The problem with intelligent design, as its leading spokesmen like to say, is that understanding the gaps is beyond us, it is a divine will. They use the eye as an example, saying we can never understand how it developed, because it is the 'obvious intervention of an intelligent designer.' Nevermind the fact that biomedicine has advanced to a point where not only is the eye almost completely understood, they can repair damage to it, and even in some cases IMPROVE it.

The irony of it is they preach, teach the controversy, but then when you look at efforts by the Discovery Institute and such, they are seeking to replace real science with the pseudo-science of intelligent design--pseudo-science because it, like philosophy and theology, attempt to apply a loosely interpreted scientific method to metaphysics.

Not circumstantial but most definitely useless, the way you interpret it. It does not demonstrate that they " must have come from the same designer", it demonstrates that they have a common ancestor. There is no need for a "designer". Guess you fail on the part about reading without the voice in your head.

Mildly interested in how many people posting on this thread are trained scientists, and in what field.

Don't forget theologists.

Computer scientist .

But I have been studying biological anthropology which (anthropology being my second major), surprise, has evolution as a core principle in it. As far as -trained-, none.

Biotech. And have a background in a Catholic seminary. So.

MS in Engineering (Electrical)
Minored in Biology for my BS

I watch a lot of the Discovery Channel, Science Channel and Animal Planet.

If there are any UK people here you might be interested in this...

2008 Darwin Day Lecture

Although if you go, you may have the misfortune to bump into me.