Menu Bar
Creationism Disproved?
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Many Intelligent Design proponents often cite the complexity of the eye as proof that the eye is so complicated that it could not have evolved. Here scientists and educators explain how the eye fits very well into Darwin's evolution model.
We are here to call out Ben Stein and his ludicrous ideas that are the spotlight of his new movie Expelled, about Intelligent Design. Expelled is a manipulation of lies that repackages religious creationism as Intelligent Design and teaches it as science in public schools. We must stand up to keep religion out of our public schools' science education.
Go to www.ExpelledExposed.com to find out more!
We are here to call out Ben Stein and his ludicrous ideas that are the spotlight of his new movie Expelled, about Intelligent Design. Expelled is a manipulation of lies that repackages religious creationism as Intelligent Design and teaches it as science in public schools. We must stand up to keep religion out of our public schools' science education.
Go to www.ExpelledExposed.com to find out more!
May 9, 2008 1:25 PM
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Nice to see an evolutionary explanation for why the photoreceptors are at the very back of the eye. Never thought of the eye that way.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
You evolutionist elitists frustrate me. Science (the god of the atheist) is built on the same amount of assumption that religion is. Demanding that the cosmos is a closed system and that everything that happens can be explained by processes within the system while being the opposite assumption of theist is still an assuption. And atheistic evolution is still unable to tell us our origin. The furthest it really takes us back is the fist cell replication. Beyond that is a myriad of conjecture, my favorite of which is the seed theory (aliens did it), which is at its core a "repackaged" inteligent design.
By the way, while inteligent design does fit conveniently into my Christian worldveiw, it is far away form being from being a religious movement. It is one thing to say that an intelligent force caused us to be. It is quite a big step to say that this force is a personal, loving God that cares about the choices of its creation. Intelligent Design does not equal Creationism. I would love to make all ID scientists Christians but the fact is they are not.
By the way, while inteligent design does fit conveniently into my Christian worldveiw, it is far away form being from being a religious movement. It is one thing to say that an intelligent force caused us to be. It is quite a big step to say that this force is a personal, loving God that cares about the choices of its creation. Intelligent Design does not equal Creationism. I would love to make all ID scientists Christians but the fact is they are not.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Fist you insult me by calling me an elitist, which makes me assume you don't want to hear what I have to say, but here I go anyway. arguing on the internet...
Wow, really? To assume that observable evidence can explain things in that observable system takes a leap of faith? Comparing that to the leap that is required to imagine some outside source is manipulating things is pretty ludicrous.
You don't know much about current scientific studies if you honestly believe that everything before the first cell reproduction is a "myriad of conjecture". And seed theory!? Really!? There isn't a respectable scientist that would even entertain the notion now, because of exactly what you mention, that in and of itself is I.D. and therefore not scientific.
And if you honestly don't believe that the concept of an "intelligent designer" isn't in most ways synonymous with "God" be that personal or impersonal does not matter, it's still a leap of FAITH that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science, which is, after all, what we're talking about here.
Discuss I.D. "theory" (misnomer, it's more of a hypothesis than anything) in your philosophy classes or your religious classes. Because it has nothing to do with the scientific method, it has no place in a science classroom. It doesn't matter what your personal religious/philosophical beliefs are.
Wow, really? To assume that observable evidence can explain things in that observable system takes a leap of faith? Comparing that to the leap that is required to imagine some outside source is manipulating things is pretty ludicrous.
You don't know much about current scientific studies if you honestly believe that everything before the first cell reproduction is a "myriad of conjecture". And seed theory!? Really!? There isn't a respectable scientist that would even entertain the notion now, because of exactly what you mention, that in and of itself is I.D. and therefore not scientific.
And if you honestly don't believe that the concept of an "intelligent designer" isn't in most ways synonymous with "God" be that personal or impersonal does not matter, it's still a leap of FAITH that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science, which is, after all, what we're talking about here.
Discuss I.D. "theory" (misnomer, it's more of a hypothesis than anything) in your philosophy classes or your religious classes. Because it has nothing to do with the scientific method, it has no place in a science classroom. It doesn't matter what your personal religious/philosophical beliefs are.
By: tjbassoon
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Sorry you felt the need to apply the "elitist" comment to your self and the feel like I insulted you. Didn't call all evo's elitists, just the elitist ones.
To eliminate the possiblity of I.D. is to claim an absolute knowledge of the universe, which is even more ludicrous than my superstitious beliefs.
Science has benefited mankind which I will not deny. But it is not enough. It has not turned us from our hate and selfish desires. It has not solved any real problems. It has given us cooler ways to kill each other and helps us live longer to kill more people.
Would like some links to some of the more current scienctific theories on our origin.
To eliminate the possiblity of I.D. is to claim an absolute knowledge of the universe, which is even more ludicrous than my superstitious beliefs.
Science has benefited mankind which I will not deny. But it is not enough. It has not turned us from our hate and selfish desires. It has not solved any real problems. It has given us cooler ways to kill each other and helps us live longer to kill more people.
Would like some links to some of the more current scienctific theories on our origin.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
The root of the problem is that ID is simply untestable and therefore unscientific.
In order to debate a scientist you need to make arguments based on reason. The assumption of a designer is fundamentally unreasonable. ID makes a "gut feeling" assertion when someone applies their understanding of the universe (from their perspective) onto the systems around them, but that's where ID stops. ID doesn't actually contribute anything, it's just an assertion.
If you would like to discuss ID as a philosophy you may have a point, but when you try to debate it as a matter of science you need to expect that the idea will be ripped apart just like any other new idea in science.
In order to debate a scientist you need to make arguments based on reason. The assumption of a designer is fundamentally unreasonable. ID makes a "gut feeling" assertion when someone applies their understanding of the universe (from their perspective) onto the systems around them, but that's where ID stops. ID doesn't actually contribute anything, it's just an assertion.
If you would like to discuss ID as a philosophy you may have a point, but when you try to debate it as a matter of science you need to expect that the idea will be ripped apart just like any other new idea in science.
By: slage123
Re: Creationism Disproved?
So at what point do science and philosphy meet? Or do they at all? And if not, what is the point of science? Why spend our time trying to figure out problems that will only benefit future generations? We will be dead. Worm food. Nothingness. Void. Who cares about a future they won't be in?
What does a scientist think about when he is alone in his bed? During those self aware moments, what does he hope and dream for? What does he worry about? What meaning or purpose does he find for his endeavours or his existence?
What does a scientist think about when he is alone in his bed? During those self aware moments, what does he hope and dream for? What does he worry about? What meaning or purpose does he find for his endeavours or his existence?
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Are you aware that your last post has absolutely nothing to do with Intelligent Design or the possible evolutionary history of the eye?
Why isn't Intelligent Design taken seriously in the scientific community? Because it doesn't meet up to the rigorous criteria that has been set by the scientific community. Why did they pick these criteria? Because they have found that these criteria work better than others.
You are being misled by the claim that evolution is supposed to explain the origin of life and the universe. It is not. Evolution explains the variety of life forms. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began. As to the origin of the universe, I would recommend reading up on Big Bang theory.
Now please, if you're going to resort to rhetoric, at least keep it on topic this time.
Why isn't Intelligent Design taken seriously in the scientific community? Because it doesn't meet up to the rigorous criteria that has been set by the scientific community. Why did they pick these criteria? Because they have found that these criteria work better than others.
You are being misled by the claim that evolution is supposed to explain the origin of life and the universe. It is not. Evolution explains the variety of life forms. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began. As to the origin of the universe, I would recommend reading up on Big Bang theory.
Now please, if you're going to resort to rhetoric, at least keep it on topic this time.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Creationism Disproved?
A lot of people used to think that way during a period of time known as "the dark ages."
Science is the search for truth. As Newton would explain it, expanding our knowledge brings us closer to understanding God. Your religion and science don't need to be mutually exclusive; however, assuming an answer that can explain everything (God) halts all progress.
As for what is going on in any particular scientist's mind, I have no idea. If they're anything like me the probably imagine how they can apply their knowledge to better the world as a whole, instead of waiting for God to get his lazy ass up and do something productive.
As for what the meaning of life may be, I have no idea, but actively trying to find out is better than staying on my knees praying.
Science is the search for truth. As Newton would explain it, expanding our knowledge brings us closer to understanding God. Your religion and science don't need to be mutually exclusive; however, assuming an answer that can explain everything (God) halts all progress.
As for what is going on in any particular scientist's mind, I have no idea. If they're anything like me the probably imagine how they can apply their knowledge to better the world as a whole, instead of waiting for God to get his lazy ass up and do something productive.
As for what the meaning of life may be, I have no idea, but actively trying to find out is better than staying on my knees praying.
By: slage123
Re: Creationism Disproved?
I think i misunderstand your woldview about as much as you misunderstand mine.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
While I admit my arguments may prove me ignorant yours prove you disrespectful.
As for waiting for God to do something, while that may be the practice of nominal Christians, it is not that of those who follow the Bible. We believe that the world is not getting better through scientific advancements, more convenient but not better. For this reason we DO get off our butts and try to better the world through being a loving and kind people and encouraging others to do the same.
As for waiting for God to do something, while that may be the practice of nominal Christians, it is not that of those who follow the Bible. We believe that the world is not getting better through scientific advancements, more convenient but not better. For this reason we DO get off our butts and try to better the world through being a loving and kind people and encouraging others to do the same.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
I'm not sure if you are a troll but I will operate on the assumption that you are being sincere.
For one, I'm not sure who is demanding or assuming that the cosmos is a closed system. Nothing in physics suggests it must be and as far as I know, the concept of something existing outside the known universe is still open to inquiry. All physics is (with the exception of some aspects of theoretical physics) an observation of the laws that exist within the known cosmos. No assumptions or faith are necessary.
Atheistic evolution (which is a bit of a misnomer; there doesn't seem to be such a thing as theistic evolution) doesn't explain the origin of life, correct, but that's not what the theory addresses: it addresses how life changes over time.
Regardless how ID is perceived today, it started out being a repackaged creationist argument aimed at getting at least the idea of a creator taught in science classes.
And in the end, it doesn't matter who one claims the creator is: aliens or God, because the theory makes no effort to try and explain how our supposed creators came into existence. Following the ID argument through, we reach an infinite regress. Natural selection provides an intuitive and predictable explanation for stopping such a regress.
For one, I'm not sure who is demanding or assuming that the cosmos is a closed system. Nothing in physics suggests it must be and as far as I know, the concept of something existing outside the known universe is still open to inquiry. All physics is (with the exception of some aspects of theoretical physics) an observation of the laws that exist within the known cosmos. No assumptions or faith are necessary.
Atheistic evolution (which is a bit of a misnomer; there doesn't seem to be such a thing as theistic evolution) doesn't explain the origin of life, correct, but that's not what the theory addresses: it addresses how life changes over time.
Regardless how ID is perceived today, it started out being a repackaged creationist argument aimed at getting at least the idea of a creator taught in science classes.
And in the end, it doesn't matter who one claims the creator is: aliens or God, because the theory makes no effort to try and explain how our supposed creators came into existence. Following the ID argument through, we reach an infinite regress. Natural selection provides an intuitive and predictable explanation for stopping such a regress.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Just another example of something ID proponents have stated to be "irreducibly complex" and later shown to be perfectly functional when broken down and explained. But that's how it's always been. The "this structure is irreducibly complex" statement is made, science investigates, and finds it to be false.
It's unfortunate that you can't charge the claimers for the research on the claims they make. Then they actually would be contributing to science rather than trying to hinder it.
It's unfortunate that you can't charge the claimers for the research on the claims they make. Then they actually would be contributing to science rather than trying to hinder it.
By: Faffy
Re: Creationism Disproved?
In the end, those of us who know Evolution to be fact cannot change the minds of people who believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design. Their believe is entirely based on a leap of faith so they cannot possibly debate it intellectually.
Any person who really paid attention to the wondrous creation of the eye itself would see it's far from perfect. Just looking at the very fact that people are born blind, that many have eyesight problems and do not see as efficiently as others, that there are things like astigmatism or cataract issues etc would point out that intelligent design cannot be plausible. Why would someone make the eye so full of malfunctions and yet we are made in God's image? If the eye is not the only example of how we are supposedly made in God's image...God must be in a coma now held to life by some invention he made and praying no one unplugs it. The human body alone is full of imperfections.
Any person who really paid attention to the wondrous creation of the eye itself would see it's far from perfect. Just looking at the very fact that people are born blind, that many have eyesight problems and do not see as efficiently as others, that there are things like astigmatism or cataract issues etc would point out that intelligent design cannot be plausible. Why would someone make the eye so full of malfunctions and yet we are made in God's image? If the eye is not the only example of how we are supposedly made in God's image...God must be in a coma now held to life by some invention he made and praying no one unplugs it. The human body alone is full of imperfections.
By: Zarthus
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Several things...
1."those of us who know evolution to be fact..." Didn't know it made the shift from the evolutionary theory to the evolutionary fact. And our belief is not based entirely on faith; we see evidence of the creator in the existence of the creation. Still it is largely based on faith. And it’s a bit of a cop out to say that we can’t debate intellectually.
2. God's image refers to His creativity and self awareness not His physical likeness. The reason for maladies such as blindness, birth defects, or bad things happen that are outside of our control is that we have ripped the reigns from our creators grip and chosen such a place.
3. If the eye is so flawed, why hasn't it gotten better yet, why have we not selectively exposed all the blind babies and gotten rid of this weak trait. Why do we go to optometrists and laser surgeons. If we take evolution to its logical extreme, what is so bad about the holocaust and the eugenics movement? In the minds of their leaders, these movements were serving our race, not crimes against it. The reason is morality, right and wrong. Where does this trait come from? How did it evolve? It doesn't benefit us much. It causes us to die for others. It drives us to censure those who don’t share the same moral standards. The very fact that we think in terms of right and wrong instead of practical and impractical points toward an inward sense that there is indeed a standard. Why do we love? Why do we have pets instead of just livestock? Why does anyone go into the military? If evolution is truth my individual life is worth more than anyone else’s and I will preserve it at all costs.
I don’t mind an open dialogue.
1."those of us who know evolution to be fact..." Didn't know it made the shift from the evolutionary theory to the evolutionary fact. And our belief is not based entirely on faith; we see evidence of the creator in the existence of the creation. Still it is largely based on faith. And it’s a bit of a cop out to say that we can’t debate intellectually.
2. God's image refers to His creativity and self awareness not His physical likeness. The reason for maladies such as blindness, birth defects, or bad things happen that are outside of our control is that we have ripped the reigns from our creators grip and chosen such a place.
3. If the eye is so flawed, why hasn't it gotten better yet, why have we not selectively exposed all the blind babies and gotten rid of this weak trait. Why do we go to optometrists and laser surgeons. If we take evolution to its logical extreme, what is so bad about the holocaust and the eugenics movement? In the minds of their leaders, these movements were serving our race, not crimes against it. The reason is morality, right and wrong. Where does this trait come from? How did it evolve? It doesn't benefit us much. It causes us to die for others. It drives us to censure those who don’t share the same moral standards. The very fact that we think in terms of right and wrong instead of practical and impractical points toward an inward sense that there is indeed a standard. Why do we love? Why do we have pets instead of just livestock? Why does anyone go into the military? If evolution is truth my individual life is worth more than anyone else’s and I will preserve it at all costs.
I don’t mind an open dialogue.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
"Didn't know it made the shift from the evolutionary theory to the evolutionary fact."
Scientific theories often become fact once the evidence becomes too overwhelming to deny, save out of perhaps ignorance. Gravity is fact, for instance.
"And our belief is not based entirely on faith; we see evidence of the creator in the existence of the creation."
That's not evidence, that's an opinion and a judgment call. There is no direct link between a creator and life on Earth. Nothing in nature explicitly points to a deity or alien race and the assumption that one exists is pure faith, especially in light of the explaining power of evolution.
"God's image refers to His creativity and self awareness not His physical likeness."
That is your interpretation. A baseless one, I might add, because nothing in the Bible alludes to it.
"If the eye is so flawed, why hasn't it gotten better yet"
Because evolution depends on what can be thought to be chance mutations and if those mutations don't arise and benefit an organism, nothing will improve. Besides, there's nothing inherently "flawed" about the eye if it still aids the organism more than if it had no eye at all. The idea of a flaw comes in when one claims the eye was intelligently designed, which ironically destroys that argument.
As for morality from evolution, that deserves its own response, one I will have to give in about two days time unless someone beats me to the punch.
Scientific theories often become fact once the evidence becomes too overwhelming to deny, save out of perhaps ignorance. Gravity is fact, for instance.
"And our belief is not based entirely on faith; we see evidence of the creator in the existence of the creation."
That's not evidence, that's an opinion and a judgment call. There is no direct link between a creator and life on Earth. Nothing in nature explicitly points to a deity or alien race and the assumption that one exists is pure faith, especially in light of the explaining power of evolution.
"God's image refers to His creativity and self awareness not His physical likeness."
That is your interpretation. A baseless one, I might add, because nothing in the Bible alludes to it.
"If the eye is so flawed, why hasn't it gotten better yet"
Because evolution depends on what can be thought to be chance mutations and if those mutations don't arise and benefit an organism, nothing will improve. Besides, there's nothing inherently "flawed" about the eye if it still aids the organism more than if it had no eye at all. The idea of a flaw comes in when one claims the eye was intelligently designed, which ironically destroys that argument.
As for morality from evolution, that deserves its own response, one I will have to give in about two days time unless someone beats me to the punch.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
As for my "baseless" interpretation, John 4:24, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." Spirit = non physical. Though the Simpsons' illustrators depict God as a five-fingered biped, no religious person over the age of ten believes God to be so limited in form.
I agree that there is nothing flawed with the eye. I was simply addressing the previous comment about birth defects are a result of God being derelict.
I do look forward to what you have to say about morality. Don't want to argue just understand.
I agree that there is nothing flawed with the eye. I was simply addressing the previous comment about birth defects are a result of God being derelict.
I do look forward to what you have to say about morality. Don't want to argue just understand.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Though again ID is not a religious movement, those who interpret ID religiously attribute those flaws to a fallen world. Make no mistake, they are not result of specific sin or the wrath thereof. It is the result of the representative choice by Adam to take control and do things outside of God's will. And before you think we're aiming the blame canon, this is a choice we reinforce daily.
This is not an arguement that I expect to sway you with. Its not even an arguement. Just clearing up some of your misunderstandings of our faith.
This is not an arguement that I expect to sway you with. Its not even an arguement. Just clearing up some of your misunderstandings of our faith.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
dawkins said nearly excact the same thing in his seminars back in the 90s :) there are free to download videos on his webpage :)
By: DerDobs
Re: Creationism Disproved?
"If it can grow, it can evolve."
I love that quote. Never even thought of that before. And now that I think about it. Yes. If it can grow, it can evolve. Think about it. Really think about it.
I love that quote. Never even thought of that before. And now that I think about it. Yes. If it can grow, it can evolve. Think about it. Really think about it.
By: frankiethefish15
Re: Creationism Disproved?
How does fetal development add to the argument? Isn't it just carrying out the intructions of its DNA? I'm admitedly not a science guy but it doesn't seem to be a really strong argument to say, "here are a bunch of molusks with varying degrees of light sensitive cells. this proves the eye evolved." How can we prove that one turned into the other? This seems about as scientific as I.D. There is no way to test this , no way to prove it. It's debate not science.
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
How do we test the idea that some gene combinations and mutations are more favorable than others? Humans have been doing it for years through artificial selection. By demonstrating that gene species can be bred to enhance some traits and discourage others, it's only a matter of suggesting a mechanism for how nature can do this on its own given vasts amount of more time.
Your misunderstanding is such that I would recommend you read some information on the subject. For a good non-scientific account of evolution, I would recommend Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
Your misunderstanding is such that I would recommend you read some information on the subject. For a good non-scientific account of evolution, I would recommend Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Another question to prove my ignorance: Why are humans the only species tackling the problems of science. Why has no other lifeform begun curing diseases or exploring the universe? Why is there such a intellectual gap between us and the the rest of the earths inhabitants? When and how did we become self-aware and why hasn't anything else gotten there yet?
By: Josho
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Fact is, Josho, that there are a number of different species that are categorized as 'sentient'. The squid, bonobos, dolphins, dogs, and elephants to name a few. We have every reason to suspect these creatures are highly intelligent. My biology instructor relayed a story of a squid escaping from its "cage" in a laboratory. Thing is, none of the above species (with the exception of bonobos, another primate and our next closest relative to the chimpanzee) use tools. It is, after all, prolonged tool use that has granted us a reprieve from the duress of surviving in the wild and has freed up tremendous amounts of time for us to sit back and reflect on the nature of things... or watch TV, whichever one prefers.
Just because they don't speak the same language as us doesn't make them non-sentient.
Just because they don't speak the same language as us doesn't make them non-sentient.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Without getting into this whole argument and then ending up making points that have already been made, I just felt the need to say that I agree with you whole-heartedly. You, sir, are truly the master of this discussion. I applaud you.
By: LaChilenita
