Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
The Wrath

Evolution / Creationism / Intelligent Design

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Some people are probably familiar with this site, but I figured I'd post it anyway.  It's basically a catalogue of responses you can use against the absurd arguments of Creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

This is a good resource site, especially the quote mining project. :thumbsup:

Philosophical though, it is a nightmare. That is, whoever is doing the article also promotes their philosophical view so you endup with a mish mash of subjectivism and determinism usually.

As for Creationism or intelligent design died almost 150 years ago and as far as I am concern it can remain dead.

Lastly, I do know of a very funny creationist website called Answers in Genesis. I thought it was a parody until I saw that these guys were not joking. Image doing a Creationism exam? It would be so easy.

Q1: Where did all the variety of horses come from? The biblical god Yahweh did it. [Correct]

Q2: How did the solar system develop? The biblical god Yahweh did it. [Correct]

Q3: Where did life come from? God did it [incorrect] The biblical god Yahweh did it. :lol:

Creationism is so lacking intelligence that a five year old child could do their 'science' since they have nothing except 'God did it'. Oh! Sorry 'The biblical god Yahweh did it' :lol:

Ash :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to say that Answers in Genesis is probably the worst of the creationist organisations in the world. The reason being is that, not only do they promote bad 'science' - even if you could it that - but also their calling for a Reformation within Christianity. Anyone who knows there history of the reformations knows that it not only affects those who are within the Christianity but also those outside the Christianity, and most of the time in ends in bloodshed :D . Creationism is an evil that mankind can do without, and when Intelligent design is ruled by the supreme court to be un-constitutional hopefully that will be an end of movement [in so far as trying to get their 'science' into the public school class rooms]

Ash B)

Edited by Rearden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I have no idea why someone would even bother arguing with a creationist let alone finding resources. I have had many a conversation with them, and it always comes down to this -

All scientists are scular humanists, Darwin lied, Hubble lied, Paluxy tracks, NASA verified the lost day. Etc, Etc.

What have been the experiances for yourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Letters

"Intelligent" Design versus Evolution

 

Donald Kennedy's Editorial ("Twilight for the enlightement?", 8 Apr., p. 165) highlights how ineffective the scientific community has been in the battle for the minds of the American public. Arguing details of scientific facts before this audience has been largely unproductive. Perhaps it is time to take a lesson from recent political campaigns: Instead of defending your position, attack a weakness of the opposition and repeat (again and again), with a modicum of humor. The following script has been effective in dealing verbally with creationists/intelligent design adherents.

 

"You have a philosophic choice between evolution or belief in ID, so called intelligent design. But even a first-year engineering student would be embarrassed to have designed your lower back with the extreme bend that allows you to stand erect even though your pelvis slants forward for knuckle-dragging like all our near relatives. You probably have had braces or wisdom teeth extracted because there are too many teeth for the size of your mouth. Then there are your sinuses, with a flawed drainage system that would provoke laughter from a plumber. Yet evolution provides a ready and rational explanation for all these design failures: by progressive changes into an erect posture, by shortening of a mammalian muzzle into a face, and by expansion of our large brains to crowd the facial bones. So take your choice: Do you prefer evolution or an ID whose letters may as well stand for Incompetent Design?"

 

After a bit of flustering, the ID adherent usually mumbles something about our inability to know the mind of God. The reply: "Indeed, ID is not science but religion and should be taught as such."

 

These simple facts need little explanation, bring evolution to a personal level, and leave the ID adherent on the defensive, all with a bit of humor. Others may wish to try it.

 

Donald U. Wise

Department of Geosciences

University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003, USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org

Edited by softwareNerd
Edited title during merge of topics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it's funny. not 3 weeks ago, my Biology Professor disspelled the myth of Intelligent design, saying "If we were designed by God, he didn't do a very good job." Especially when you consider the myriad genetic faults and bodily imperfections that are biologically inherint.

From a biologically physical standpoint, humans are quite fragile. Just about the only thing we have going for us is our massive brain, which houses a mind capable of reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were to turn out that God had designed us and everything... I would ask why he made us so we can go and stuff up his plans so much?

Sure, apparently he wanted to give us free will, but this is clearly a bogus theory. How much free will does the Bible demand? It would seem that free will is exactly what God would NOT want man to have. And that if he was so great and wise, he would have figured this out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it were to turn out that God had designed us and everything... I would ask why he made us so we can go and stuff up his plans so much?

Sure, apparently he wanted to give us free will, but this is clearly a bogus theory.  How much free will does the Bible demand?  It would seem that free will is exactly what God would NOT want man to have.  And that if he was so great and wise, he would have figured this out...

Hee hee hee.

Can god make a mountain that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Just one of the many condradictions in the notion of an "all powerful god".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hee hee hee.

Can god make a mountain that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Just one of the many condradictions in the notion of an "all powerful god".

Indeed.... if someone started a thread about such contradictions, it could go on for a very long, long, long time. I wonder if I should start a thread on it?

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, it's funny. not 3 weeks ago, my Biology Professor disspelled the myth of Intelligent design, saying "If we were designed by God, he didn't do a very good job." Especially when you consider the myriad genetic faults and bodily imperfections that are biologically inherint.

From a biologically physical standpoint, humans are quite fragile. Just about the only thing we have going for us is our massive brain, which houses a mind capable of reason.

Ask your biology professor, if all species evolved from a common amoeba, why is there only one species able to adapt the environment to himself. All other species adapt to the environment.

Statistically, there should be several or many species that evolved to a higher level of intelligence. Think about this for a moment with an open mind.

Hmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hee hee hee.

Can god make a mountain that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Just one of the many condradictions in the notion of an "all powerful god".

Hee hee hee, that is a theological question, which can not be proven either way. As this is a biosciences forum, allow me to pose a bioscience related question.

When a scientific law and a scientific theory conflict, which should we disregard?

The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

Every theoretical evolutionary step from amoeba to man would violate the physical laws of science. Intelligent Design embraces science, while evolution mocks it.

I breathlessly await your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As this is a biosciences forum, allow me to pose a bioscience related question.

When a scientific law and a scientific theory conflict, which should we disregard?

The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

Every theoretical evolutionary step from amoeba to man would violate the physical laws of science. Intelligent Design embraces science, while evolution mocks it.

I breathlessly await your response.

The second law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution are not in conflict at all. Evolutionary theory does not hold that living things evolve "upward" or "toward complexity" or toward "higher intelligence" or any such thing. Take a look at an evolutionary tree of all living organisms which includes genetic distance. You will see that fungi are more evolved than plants, and are the closest relatives to the animals. Plants can make their own food, whereas animals and fungi cannot. Which seems like a more derived condition? Yet fungi and animals are both more derived on the evolutionary tree of life than are plants. Heterotrophy is only one character state to be analyzed, as is intelligence or whatnot, whatever you choose.

The only hard and fast rule in evolutionary theory is that organisms evolve toward greater fitness in a reproductive sense. If that means that one simple protein, rather than two complex ones, provides greater fitness to an organism, then it will be selected for - more copies of the DNA for that protein rather than copies of the other two will be passed down to the next generation. Whatever traits provide organisms with greater fitness will have a greater selection coefficient, regardless of whether they are simple or complex. Indeed, the second law of thermodynamics itself (in the form of mutations) provides the variation in the traits. Usually mutations are bad. But once in awhile, they're great. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad religion is making this issue important to them, because the facts are so clearly contrary to intellegent design. This is religions last pathetic stand.

I for one would not care if they succeed in having intellegent design "taught" along side evolution, because the innocent children will make the correct choice. And they will leave school with a much better appreciation for science and disdain for religion.

(And it also might have the added benfit of making people question the value of state run education -- a favorite liberal cause.

Let us see how eagerly the liberals encourage public education when a republican run government gets to inject "intellegent design" into their beloved public schools)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists. It is a view that screams for acceptance on the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot! You would have me belive that Shakespeares plays were written by rioting monkeys in a print shop given enough time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists.  It is a view that screams for acceptance on  the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot!  You would have me belive that Shakespeares plays were written by rioting monkeys in a print shop given enough time!

If ID is true, who is the intellegent designer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

This is patent gibberish of the worst kind. Allow me to enlighten you. As an intellectual exercise, I shall do so without referencing any books of any kind.

The second law of thermodynamics which you throw around, inaccurately, with such reckless abandon states, IIRC, that the universe, i.e. everything that exists, gradually moves towards a state of increased entropy.

Now, for some context, let's remember that the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Increasing entropy means, in general terms, that the same amount of energy is gradually being disbursed over a greater and greater "area". This is approximately analogous to what happens when you drop ink into a bowl of water, at first it's all concentrated in one spot, but gradually, over time, it diffuses and the entire bowl turns a uniform color, which is much, much lighter than the ink itself.

Complex molecules (such as amino acids and DNA) actually cannot EXIST in extremely high-energy environments because the atoms are moving SO fast that the molecules keep breaking up. It is not until the energy has "spread out" quite a bit that said molecules can even form.

In high-energy conditions (say, the core of the sun) individual atoms can't even exist, they fuse!

Goodness knows (or perhaps someone who's taken more than physics 101 does) that in EXTREMELY high-energy conditions (such as might have existed during the "Big Bang" or what have you) even subatomic particles may have been completely dissociated.

So, you might even be able to say that the universe, as it "diffuses", is moving to a state of GREATER complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists.  It is a view that screams for acceptance on  the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot!  You would have me belive that Shakespeares plays were written by rioting monkeys in a print shop given enough time!

This is a forum for discussing Objectivism. Objectivists ARE atheists.

We accept one and only one means of gaining knowledge: reason. As such we demand not that a given theory "makes sense" or "fits the facts" but that a definite causal relationship be established based on observational evidence. I could just as easily say that it rained yesterday because the Moon People were dusting the Earth with their magic Moon Dust, which makes it rain. It explains everything. It makes sense. It's completely arbitrary. Not only have I failed to present any evidence of any sort whatsoever for the existence of Moon People and Moon Dust, I have failed to establish any kind of causal relationship between Moon Dust and rainfall.

What, PRECISELY, does evolution fail to explain? Or are you just regurgitating some undigested slogan you happened to hear without thinking about it?

Scott Adams, who in many cases is a very confused thinker, presented a lovely list in one of his books, The Joy of Work, entitled "You Are Wrong Because". One of the listed items was: "Incompleteness as proof of defect." His example was: "Evolution doesn't explain why there are no unicorns. Therefore evolution must be wrong."

A person who writes comics about office idiocy spotted the flaw in your argument, Shakespearian Monkey Boy.

Edited by JMeganSnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

You misunderstand both the second law of thermodynamics and evolution.

The second law DOES NOT say that each separate thing deteriorates. It says that the UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE becomes more random. Heat engines (the study of which led to formulating the second law) can produce useful work while degrading heat (from their fuel). Living things can grow and reproduce (reducing their own randomness) while degrading their source of energy whether it is light or rocks or other living or recently living things.

Darwinian Evolution is not "an unbroken upward progression of complexity". Species can evolve to be simpler or smaller. Evolution is an application of the law of identity. Inheritable attributes which increase the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce (under current conditions) tend to become more common.

There is no conflict between these two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a forum for discussing Objectivism.  Objectivists ARE atheists. 

We accept one and only one means of gaining knowledge: reason.  As such we demand not that a given theory "makes sense" or "fits the facts" but that a definite causal relationship be established based on observational evidence.  I could just as easily say that it rained yesterday because the Moon People were dusting the Earth with their magic Moon Dust, which makes it rain.  It explains everything.  It makes sense.  It's completely arbitrary.  Not only have I failed to present any evidence of any sort whatsoever for the existence of Moon People and Moon Dust, I have failed to establish any kind of causal relationship between Moon Dust and rainfall.

What, PRECISELY, does evolution fail to explain?  Or are you just regurgitating some undigested slogan you happened to hear without thinking about it?

Scott Adams, who in many cases is a very confused thinker, presented a lovely list in one of his books, The Joy of Work, entitled "You Are Wrong Because".  One of the listed items was: "Incompleteness as proof of defect."  His example was: "Evolution doesn't explain why there are no unicorns.  Therefor evolution must be wrong."

A person who writes comics about office idiocy spotted the flaw in your argument, Shakespearian Monkey Boy.

If you define an atheist as someone who KNOWS that God doesn't exist, I suspect a lot of Objectivists would add that even asking the question "Does God exist?" makes no sense and admits of no rational answer or debate. That seems to be a position beyond atheism and invulnerable to the ID argument. God and existence are irreconcilable concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A person who writes comics about office idiocy spotted the flaw in your argument, Shakespearian Monkey Boy.
Jennifer, that post was simply brilliant.

If you define an atheist as someone who KNOWS that God doesn't exist, I suspect a lot of Objectivists would add that even asking the question "Does God exist?" makes no sense and admits of no rational answer or debate. That seems to be a position beyond atheism and invulnerable to the ID argument. God and existence are irreconcilable concepts.

No one knows that something doesn't exist. That's absurd!

Something that doesn't exist (which itself is a contradiction in terms but is used here as an illustration) is nothing, a zero. To say that I know 'A' does not exist is to, literally and metaphysically, say 'I know nothing.' (you may in fact be able to conceptualize 'A' but only as an antithesis to a conceptual opposite)

You can only know that something does exist, in said quantity, with observed (which implies finite) attributes.

To those who speak of 'God.' I say "Show Me!" I can only know what your concept of 'God' is through the eyes and ears (senses) that are the root of rational and moral life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...