jhnbrbr
New member
Forgive my late arrival at this thread but I would like to make a few points which are generally in support of Sunwaiter
(i) People often decide in advance what they are going to believe and then look for evidence to support their position. To many people evolution is not an attractive concept because it appears to diminish the status of human beings in the order of things. We would like to think we are pristine creations from the drawing board of the "Intelligent Designer", not some "scrapheap challenge" contraption knocked together from bits of obsolete models. Similarly, global warming is not attractive because it paints a depressing "doomsday" picture, and also requires us to change our lifestyles in ways we would prefer not to.
(ii) The Bible may be an excellent moral authority, but it is definitely not an authority on scientific matters. I can't believe anyone having the advantage of a 21st century viewpoint would take the account of creation in Genesis as literal truth. It is not science, but myth, and I don't mean that as an insult, because it is a profound and beautiful myth, but science it ain't.
(iii) "Intelligent design" could be seen as a misnomer. It could be argued that to design a universe in which evolution can take place is more intelligent than designing one with a fixed number of permanent species.
(iv) Any explanantion which requires the intervention of a supernatural being isn't really an explanation at all. Historically, progress has always been made by thinking of the universe as a law-abiding system which takes care of itself.
(v) Lots of science is not very comprehensible at common-sense level. Eg we have no feeling for relativity because we don't experience the speeds and distances at which it becomes significant. In the case of evolution, we can't easily grasp the enormous timescales involved.
(vi) I don't find Robert's explaining away of dinosaurs as a "temporary" mutation at all convincing. If you're prepared to admit short term mutations, then why not long term ones too? And can you show me any living animals which bear the slightest similarity to a brontosaurus? Again, even if you don't admit the creation of new species, you must admit the possibility of extinction.
(vii) I'm not clear why genetics and evolution are seen as being in opposition. As I understand it, our DNA "recipe" contains lots of redundant junk code which is never actually used, very similar to an old computer program which has been modified too often. I would have thought, if anything, this supported evolution, unless the "intelligent designer" is a very untidy worker.
(viii) We may not be able to "defeat nature", but we certainly have the ability to alter our environment in a way which would endanger our own survival (eg in the short term by massive nuclear warfare if we were crazy enough). The mechanism of global warming is not in question - it is a question of degree (or degrees C!). Nobody talks about population control any more (perhaps it's too politically sensitive), but that is surely an important part of the equation too.
(i) People often decide in advance what they are going to believe and then look for evidence to support their position. To many people evolution is not an attractive concept because it appears to diminish the status of human beings in the order of things. We would like to think we are pristine creations from the drawing board of the "Intelligent Designer", not some "scrapheap challenge" contraption knocked together from bits of obsolete models. Similarly, global warming is not attractive because it paints a depressing "doomsday" picture, and also requires us to change our lifestyles in ways we would prefer not to.
(ii) The Bible may be an excellent moral authority, but it is definitely not an authority on scientific matters. I can't believe anyone having the advantage of a 21st century viewpoint would take the account of creation in Genesis as literal truth. It is not science, but myth, and I don't mean that as an insult, because it is a profound and beautiful myth, but science it ain't.
(iii) "Intelligent design" could be seen as a misnomer. It could be argued that to design a universe in which evolution can take place is more intelligent than designing one with a fixed number of permanent species.
(iv) Any explanantion which requires the intervention of a supernatural being isn't really an explanation at all. Historically, progress has always been made by thinking of the universe as a law-abiding system which takes care of itself.
(v) Lots of science is not very comprehensible at common-sense level. Eg we have no feeling for relativity because we don't experience the speeds and distances at which it becomes significant. In the case of evolution, we can't easily grasp the enormous timescales involved.
(vi) I don't find Robert's explaining away of dinosaurs as a "temporary" mutation at all convincing. If you're prepared to admit short term mutations, then why not long term ones too? And can you show me any living animals which bear the slightest similarity to a brontosaurus? Again, even if you don't admit the creation of new species, you must admit the possibility of extinction.
(vii) I'm not clear why genetics and evolution are seen as being in opposition. As I understand it, our DNA "recipe" contains lots of redundant junk code which is never actually used, very similar to an old computer program which has been modified too often. I would have thought, if anything, this supported evolution, unless the "intelligent designer" is a very untidy worker.
(viii) We may not be able to "defeat nature", but we certainly have the ability to alter our environment in a way which would endanger our own survival (eg in the short term by massive nuclear warfare if we were crazy enough). The mechanism of global warming is not in question - it is a question of degree (or degrees C!). Nobody talks about population control any more (perhaps it's too politically sensitive), but that is surely an important part of the equation too.