if i gave the belief that evolution was predicated on TOTAL randomness, that was not my point.
my point is this. the components of evolution: random collisions of atoms, elements, molecules, and the like in order to form the rudiments of life; natural selection and comparative advantage (which is not only plausible but verifiable and the easiest thing about evolution to accept); the highly suspect "macroevolution" and the like, attempt to explain the "evolution" of everything in general, and even tries to explain "evolving" one thing into something ultimately completely different.
even if you believe this happened over VAST eras of time it still stretches the bounds of rational thought, given the LAWS of thermodynamics and entropy. all things tend to decay and simplicity, not complexity. if anything, even if you did believe in evolution, it would only seems rational to me that evolution proves the existance of God since evolution itself violates the laws of nature.
you can talk about jumping genes and transpositrons, etc, et al, ad nauseam, to try to explain it, but the athiest and or scientific community attempt to use athiestic rationalism as an explanation for everything and break the fundamental rule of science. they have all started with a conclusion ("evolution isn't a theory, IT'S A FACT" because God doesn't exist) and work tirelessly to try to make everything fit this theory.
excuse me, but the last time i read the scientific method it was "observe, hypothesize, test, adjust and repeat until you identify facts or even define laws." it isn't "observe, use your bias to create the conclusion in your mind, and then test and repeat until you make observations fit your a priori conclusion." that's what the Church has often been accused of, even though universities and science wouldn't exist in the western world without the Church. how ironic.
i personally do not believe that evolution, creation, or even intelligent design ought to be taught in public schools. however, as with so much of the post-enlightment, socialist, leftist garbage shoved down everyone's throats for the past 200+ years, teaching something without an agenda isn't good enough. some half-witted alternative has to be rammed down every kid's throat, and if you don't like it, tough. you're just "ignorant!" textbooks, teachers, scientists, and politicians should be less like "journalists" and more like "reporters." gives chidlren the facts and leave your stupid explainations as to "why" at the door.
evolution is first and foremost, a theory. it is a theory with many holes in it, a theory that is "evolving" itself, and lastly is a theory with an agenda. it is the athiest way to explain "why."
as a crass malformed religous american (Catholic):
do i believe in natural selection? yes, as an observable phenomena, but not as the underpinning of evolution.
do i believe in creation as it happened in the Bible? maybe, maybe not, but then there is no way to prove that that did happen.
do i believe in evolution? no, if it means by random chance, natural selection, and spontaneous evolution, that modern biological life "evolved" from lower life. for example, that homo sapiens came from advanced hominids that came from less advanced hominids that came from gorillas or chimps that came from something other lower order primate that came from birds or dinosaurs that came from fish or lizards that came from multicellular organisms that came from amoeba that came from random proteins that came from star dust from a comet, that was in a pool of goo that was struck by lightening, that came from older start dust that came from pure energy in a big bang which came from???
so, do i believe in evolution? in a word, no. i might be dumb, but i'm not stupid.
intelligent design (my own definition):
"the contents of the universe (creation, in a word) have a logical and physical 'order' on every scale, from quantum mechanics, to biology, to physics, to chemistry, to general sciences and even sociology and natural law, to geophysics, to astrophysics. human society has even defined and proven a wide array of observable laws that govern the 'order' in the universe.
that there is 'order' and laws to prove it are beyond debate, athiest or thiest alike.
for those that believe in a 'Diety' of some sort, the logical and physical order of 'creation' exists to a level of complexity that it should not, given the laws of physics. also, the level of symbiosis and complexity of such symbiosis in different parts of 'creation' is beyond mere coincidence. this complexity, along with the idea of atheists that this is all random, strains the bounds of rational thought for someone who is a theist. so, for a thiest, it is only logical and rational that the logic and order of 'creation' is not random, but an observation of the existence of a 'Diety' that created this 'order.'"
Though i'd agree with pinter's bandwagon comments on the US and Iraq, he's an overly-published, overly-winded, nobel-winning leftist fool. He's like a British Noam Chomsky -- he sounds great to start with, but after a while is like hearing a left wing version of Michael Savage babbling on about all of the right-wing, capitalist conspiracies conspiring to enslave us all and oppress those poor, innocent socialist/communists of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
if i gave the belief that evolution was predicated on TOTAL randomness, that was not my point.
my point is this. the components of evolution: random collisions of atoms, elements, molecules, and the like in order to form the rudiments of life; natural selection and comparative advantage (which is not only plausible but verifiable and the easiest thing about evolution to accept); the highly suspect "macroevolution" and the like, attempt to explain the "evolution" of everything in general, and even tries to explain "evolving" one thing into something ultimately completely different.
even if you believe this happened over VAST eras of time it still stretches the bounds of rational thought, given the LAWS of thermodynamics and entropy. all things tend to decay and simplicity, not complexity. if anything, even if you did believe in evolution, it would only seems rational to me that evolution proves the existance of God since evolution itself violates the laws of nature.
you can talk about jumping genes and transpositrons, etc, et al, ad nauseam, to try to explain it, but the athiest and or scientific community attempt to use athiestic rationalism as an explanation for everything and break the fundamental rule of science. they have all started with a conclusion ("evolution isn't a theory, IT'S A FACT" because God doesn't exist) and work tirelessly to try to make everything fit this theory.
excuse me, but the last time i read the scientific method it was "observe, hypothesize, test, adjust and repeat until you identify facts or even define laws." it isn't "observe, use your bias to create the conclusion in your mind, and then test and repeat until you make observations fit your a priori conclusion." that's what the Church has often been accused of, even though universities and science wouldn't exist in the western world without the Church. how ironic.
i personally do not believe that evolution, creation, or even intelligent design ought to be taught in public schools. however, as with so much of the post-enlightment, socialist, leftist garbage shoved down everyone's throats for the past 200+ years, teaching something without an agenda isn't good enough. some half-witted alternative has to be rammed down every kid's throat, and if you don't like it, tough. you're just "ignorant!" textbooks, teachers, scientists, and politicians should be less like "journalists" and more like "reporters." gives chidlren the facts and leave your stupid explainations as to "why" at the door.
evolution is first and foremost, a theory. it is a theory with many holes in it, a theory that is "evolving" itself, and lastly is a theory with an agenda. it is the athiest way to explain "why."
do i believe in natural selection? yes, as an observable phenomena, but not as the underpinning of evolution.
do i believe in creation as it happened in the Bible? maybe, maybe not, but then there is no way to prove that that did happen.
do i believe in evolution? no, if it means by random chance, natural selection, and spontaneous evolution, that modern biological life "evolved" from lower life. for example, that homo sapiens came from advanced hominids that came from less advanced hominids that came from gorillas or chimps that came from something other lower order primate that came from birds or dinosaurs that came from fish or lizards that came from multicellular organisms that came from amoeba that came from random proteins that came from star dust from a comet, that was in a pool of goo that was struck by lightening, that came from older start dust that came from pure energy in a big bang which came from???
so, do i believe in evolution? in a word, no. i might be dumb, but i'm not stupid.
intelligent design (my own definition):
Though i'd agree with pinter's bandwagon comments on the US and Iraq, he's an overly-published, overly-winded, nobel-winning leftist fool. He's like a British Noam Chomsky -- he sounds great to start with, but after a while is like hearing a left wing version of Michael Savage babbling on about all of the right-wing, capitalist conspiracies conspiring to enslave us all and oppress those poor, innocent socialist/communists of the world.