Jan. 29th, 2006 @ 01:34 pm
Okay...I've been waiting to post a thread here until we got a larger member base so we could actually have a wide range of opinions...but our member count hasn't actually grown in a while, and I'm in the mood for debate, so I'm going to launch the first post. I've been debating the subject of evolution with people on DA, and discovered it is extremely frustrating and useless since they respond with things like, "Just to let you know, I really don't care what evolutionists say. I didn't even bother reading the link," or "I don't know how it turned out that way. I wasn't there. It's pointless to ask a question no one knows the answer to," when I come up with an argument that they can't defend.
So I come here in the hopes we can actually have some intelligent discussion on the subject. So. Evolution. Or evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design, if you will. Discuss.
Honestly, I don't really know about Creationism/Intelligent Design to say that they aren't true. I think the only problem I actually have with those two ideas can be summed up with the words of my Bio Professor from my lecture on Friday. He basically said that "The difference between science and religion, is that religion can't be tested with concrete evidence, but science needs to be tested."
My family has always been involved in the religious stuff, and I've been raised with religion, but, because most of my family members are scientists, science has also played a large role in my life, and my parents raised me with aspects of religion that seem to fit modern scientific advances.
Evolution is really the first scientific idea I ever learned, I remember my parents telling me when I was three, that humans and dogs are cousins, and when I was little, I'd even sometimes call my mom's dog 'Auntie' ;).
I think to a certain degree I need to believe in evolution, and at this point in time, I've found scientific evidence that supports evidence, and the more I attend my Bio lectures, the more evidence I receive pro-evolution.
I probably should do more research on the topic of Creationism/Intelligent Design, after all, there must be some evidence that makes some scholars to believe in it, but I have yet to find compelling evidence, actually, I've yet to find evidence at all.
I'm afraid I'm only familiar with the Judeo-Christian theories of Creationism and ID, as those are the ones I find others most commonly challenging my views of evolution with. And those are the ones being debated in school boards and whatnot here (being that we live in a predominately Christian country).
What I've found is that the more I learn about both evolution, and the arugments against it, the more evolution seems like the logical answer to me. I've yet to hear any compelling argument for
creationism. Though evolution itself does not deal with the concept of God. The reason religion and evolution tend to clash is that creationists typically take the Genesis story in the Old Testament literally (which is interesting in and of itself because the Bible actually presents two
different creation stories at which point I have to wonder which one they consider to be accurate and why). Genesis states that God created Man after his own image, and that human beings were the same back then as they are now. And while it's not explicitly stated, most creationists include the concept that all other animals have not changed drastoically (i.e. speciation) over time either. Thus the whole "humans evolved from an ape-like creature and share a common ancestor with modern-day non-human primates" tends to ruffle feathers.
The arguments I typically receive (at least the ones that actually even come close to effectively arguing the point) are that all archaelogical finds suggesting ape-like ancestors are hoaxes. Though I've yet to be given any convincing evidence of that opinion. I'm generally given links to http://www.answersingenesis.org
which has a habit of only linking to scholarly articles that prove their points and ignoring the ones that do not. More often then not they just link to other websites proclaiming things to be true without any clear evidence. When people throw links like that at me, I tend to throw this back at them: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Which I've found provides much more logical, aware, and scientifically sound arguments. I'm particularly fond of the FAQ page: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Evolution vs alternatives, perhaps? The issue has become science vs religion in my mind, since there are scientific alternatives to evolution, but no substantial number of either scientists or anti-Darwinists follows them. There was an article in the paper this morning my an architect of ID defending it's status as science, but he even failed to do that. He quoted Dawkins (a highly vocal atheist anti-ID biologist) out of context in his opening paragraphs. ( To paraphrase: 'Dawkins said "It appears that the complexity of life is too great to be accounted for by random chance"' whereas in Dawkins' paper that was followed by a HOWEVER. )
My stance on evolution vs creationism has always been in favor of evolution, because science is based on fact and experience what we know- it can be observed and recreated.
My stance on evolution vs ID in the classroom is absolutly 100% evolution because ID is a religious theory (it assumes the presence of a Creator or some guiding force in the evolutionary process as the very basis of the theory, how can it not be religious?) and does not belong in the science classroom any more than an evangalist preaching that the earth was created 6000 years ago needs to be teaching Ancient Civilizations.
My stance on Deviantart is that you can't control who replies or moderate the environment, so if anything takes off at all it has a potential to blow up, and is simply not worth the trouble of trying.
I've actually not heard about alternatives other than Creationism and ID. Care to elabortae?
And I agree on all your stances. ;)
I haven't been able to find any good sources, really, or at least ones with any evidence to back them up. :P There's Lamarkian evolution (inhertiance of aquired characteristics) which has more or less been disproved but some people still cling to for whatever reason. Which is still evolution, really, but it's not Neo-Darwinian so people don't bring it up very much... There's a theory that all creatures have a perfect form that they are moving towards, it's more metaphysical than science and I don't know the technical name for it. There's the theory that everythign exists the way it always has which is hard to prove and is kind of hard to wrap your head around if you think about it. Frankly I haven't met a credible scientist who didn't believe in neo-Darwinian evolution so I couldn't tell you any credible scientific alternatives. I just know they exist and aren't generally held up with any credibility in the scientific community.