Jason Bode wrote:
>I don't think how evolution happened is understood in its entirety at all.
>Natural selection alone isn't enough, looking at many IC systems.
since the first seemingly IC systems were observed several have been
demonstrated not to be IC. I have a feeling the list of IC systems is going
to be constantly dwindling. The how of evolution is constantly under
investigation. There's still lots to learn. However, generally, it's very
well understood.
>>design isn't incredible. There's just no way to tell if you are
>>seeing it or not.
>Design IS incredible, but I agree with that 2nd sentence.
>>Therefore it's outside of what science does.
>So why do scientists assert quite the opposite philosophy and claim
>everything is NOT designed?
see above. You can't tell if something is designed or not, so you have to
assume it's not. If it *is* designed then it's utterly idiosyncratic to the
designer and unavailable to be understood. The assumption of design stops
science in its tracks.
>>"Not a single word, sentence, or comma may be added or subtracted from
>>the Bible. It is utterly static."
>
>But those who believe the Bible may examine their interpretations of verses,
>chapters, etc. and so religions based on the Bible change. The numbers
>obtained from science don't change, the explanations behind the gathered
>data change.
The bible is the source of religious information and therefore static--there
will be no more. The numbers obtained from science *do* change, new
information comes in all the time.
I just realized you were right about the bible. Since the bible is written
by dozens of people over hundreds of years it is very self-contradictory and
chaotic, with few consistant themes. After nearly 3000 years, modern people
don't really know what was the point of a lot of the oldest biblical tales.
Everybody ends up with an opinion about what it all means and some years
some opinions are more fashionable than others.
Nature seems to have a discernable consistant pattern.
>>you are going to have to substantiate that claim. I was unaware that
>>creationists had any undisputed evidence. What are you referring to?
>
>>From what I've seen, there are not so many evolutionary claims that are
>undisputed either.
things like the physics of isochron dating and fossil evidence are only
disputed by creationists. Not all dispute is equal :-)
>>oh, heavens, I think Dawkins is an idiot because he tries to "prove"
>>atheism by using evolution. Some people's idiocy has no effect on the
>> >facts one way or another.
>
>Out of curiosity: are you an atheist? If no, which philosophy would you
>associate yourself with?
Yes, I'm an atheist. I'm a Unitarian Universalist which, I realize, tells
you almost nothing. If you would like, click on the url below my sig and go
to the link on spirituality.
>>bitterness between you and me? (I hadn't seen that) or bitterness >between
>>creationists and evolutionists? If the latter, I think it's >because (a)
>>the creationists have done nothing but lose ground over >the last 150 years
>>and they *really* don't like that and (b) the >people for the evolutionist
>>side are hobbyists.
>
>or (c) NEITHER side wishes to learn they're wrong about even some of their
>ideals on how the earth got to be the way it is or maybe (d) it's human
>nature to dig yourself in behind your viewpoints and resist change.
:-) there are hundreds of new graduate students every single year who want
to make a big splash with their Phd theses. If something's wrong with
evolution or *any* portion of science, someone is going to make their
reputation and get tenure for exposing it.
to further explain (b): hobbyists are often (but not always) not scientists
and go overboard, get emotional and say things that someone with a strong
grasp of the subject material would never say. It's a wonderful
conversation, but it can get heated!
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb