Jump to content

Creationist or Evolutionist?


DarthTofu
 Share

What should be taught?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. What should be taught?

    • Evolution
      15
    • Intelligent Design
      2
    • Both
      8


Recommended Posts

Guest Scathane
I'll agree that "higher" and "lower" might not be the best term for what happens in evolution, but those are the terms used by evolutionary theorists.
Not by all, my friend:
    Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general. One of the most common misunderstandings of the theory is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive, or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations. This claim was often made in pursuit of Social Darwinism, a 19th-20th century political ideology which held that the subjection of the poor and minority groups was favored by evolution.

You see, ToguroAni? The quote can be found in wikipedia's entry for evolution. In effect, this dubs you a Social Darwinist... :lol:

 

Whether it clearly is or isn't is up for debate...
No it isn't... 'The human ability to look at our communication abilities, compare the tools primates use to ours and things like that' clearly isn't a trait beneficial to all organisms...

 

...but that isnt the point of this post.
No, the point of this thread is whether or not evolution theory and/or intelligent design should be taught in school (science classes if you will). If evolution theory is to be taught in school, I think we can agree it should be taught properly...

 

Primates have tools to communicate and even perform basic tasks (such as getting food from anthills with a stick) and for them, assuming that nothing changes their habitate or lifestyle, that is enough if it keeps them alive.
The tools and tasks you mention are enough to keep humans alive as well...

 

However, the requirements for keeping a human alive at one point must have been greater than keeping a primate alive...
In what terms? :?

 

...else we wouldn't have evolved a more complex brain structure...
Evolution of the brain wasn't the result of higher requirements to keep humans alive, ToguroAni. If you believe that, then you truly fail to grasp what evolution and natural selection are about. The evolution of a more complex brain was rather triggered by random adaptations, remember?

 

(as only those with mutations in the brain that caused more complex, i.e. "higher", thought managed to survive whatever physical change the primates' environment was undergoing). Once that initial batch of "smarter-than-average" apes became the norm, the process repeated until you had humans. You're absolutely correct when you say that using the phrase "higher" is biased, but while the word usage might be biased, since it simply means "more compex", then despite the biasedd usage, it still stands.[/b]
Which I think we can agree, it doesn't... Moreover, it seems it's not only by word usage... If you disagree with that particular section, I suggest you propose your arguments in the article's discussion page...

 

I WILL point out that many people do not consider viruses to be life forms...
People? Which people? Anyway, whether or not this is true is completely beside the point because viruses are eukaryotes... In other words, they're organisms, which I believe, makes them highly qualified to appear in this thread.

 

...but we'll assume they are since its important for this point. Viruses are excellent at survival, but are not very complex.
Come again?! 8O For one, my guess is that loads of evolutionists as well as virologists would disagree with you... Moreover, I think (and this is my opinion) it quite arrogant for scientists to state that viruses are less complex, since they have a very, very hard time understanding what certain viruses are, how they work or can be stopped. In fact, they are often unable to do so.

 

:idea: Think about it: it might well be that there's a lot of complexity to viruses we do not understand yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In response to the whole viruses are living thing. I searched the wikipedia entry for eukaryotes and virus did not appear once. Moreover, when I looked up "virus" in wikipedia they say "Because viruses are dependent on host cells for their replication they are generally not classified as "living"." Also, I looked it up and there are 3 Domains, the Eukaryotes, the Prokaryotes and the Archae and viruses aren't placed into any of these! That means that nearly all scientists feel that they are not truly alive. Viruses don't have nucleases or a way of reproducing between viruses or by themselves, but rather they must be inside another type of cell that is alive in order to reproduce. That's the main reason we don't understand how viruses work, mainly because they aren't alive and frankly anything that isn't alive and still manages to reproduce is quite puzzling.

 

As for the fact that the term "higher" and "lower" aren't used by all evolutionary theorists, its true that hardly any will agree in the way you are taking us to mean it (with evolution having a direction and stuff, even though I don't mean that), but all scientists (but maybe a select few) use it when calling things more complex, even if it isn't the best term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Darwinism would imply that evolution has a direction. However, since evolution is random, social Darwinism is mistaken, and those who say that "higher/lower" is a synonym for more or less complex must be true.

 

Evolution of the brain wasn't the result of higher requirements to keep humans alive, ToguroAni. If you believe that, then you truly fail to grasp what evolution and natural selection are about. The evolution of a more complex brain was rather triggered by random adaptations, remember?

 

Of course I remember. However, my argument stands. If humans were in a situation where food could only be obtained through the use of tools, then only the humans whose brains had mutated to the point where they were smart enough to invent these tools would survive. Its a random event, but their survival over the others was caused by their environment. Likewise if humans had to be really strong to survive, those smart, tool-using humans would die in favor of the brutes, because thats what the environment demanded.

 

 

AdmiralToguroAni wrote:

I'll agree that "higher" and "lower" might not be the best term for what happens in evolution, but those are the terms used by evolutionary theorists.

Not by all, my friend:

Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general. One of the most common misunderstandings of the theory is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive, or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations. This claim was often made in pursuit of Social Darwinism, a 19th-20th century political ideology which held that the subjection of the poor and minority groups was favored by evolution.

You see, ToguroAni? The quote can be found in wikipedia's entry for evolution. In effect, this dubs you a Social Darwinist...

 

Social Darwinism is a philosophy, not a science. Regardless, evolution itself offers no guarantees, but the environment helps ensure that the most "fit" species survive. A penguin with a mutation that causes it to be born without webbed feet wouldn't last long, for example.

 

Quote:

Primates have tools to communicate and even perform basic tasks (such as getting food from anthills with a stick) and for them, assuming that nothing changes their habitate or lifestyle, that is enough if it keeps them alive.

The tools and tasks you mention are enough to keep humans alive as well...

 

Quote:

However, the requirements for keeping a human alive at one point must have been greater than keeping a primate alive...

In what terms?

 

Quote:

...else we wouldn't have evolved a more complex brain structure...

Evolution of the brain wasn't the result of higher requirements to keep humans alive, ToguroAni. If you believe that, then you truly fail to grasp what evolution and natural selection are about. The evolution of a more complex brain was rather triggered by random adaptations, remember?

 

See my response about the penguin. Humans evolved, through randomness, into a smarter species. Whatever environment they were in at the time weeded out the ones with more feeble intelligence.

 

Quote:

(as only those with mutations in the brain that caused more complex, i.e. "higher", thought managed to survive whatever physical change the primates' environment was undergoing). Once that initial batch of "smarter-than-average" apes became the norm, the process repeated until you had humans. You're absolutely correct when you say that using the phrase "higher" is biased, but while the word usage might be biased, since it simply means "more compex", then despite the biasedd usage, it still stands.[/b]

Which I think we can agree, it doesn't... Moreover, it seems it's not only by word usage... If you disagree with that particular section, I suggest you propose your arguments in the article's discussion page...

 

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, considering Social Darwinism isnt a science but rather a philosophy, The higher=more complex argument still stands.

 

 

People? Which people? Anyway, whether or not this is true is completely beside the point because viruses are eukaryotes... In other words, they're organisms, which I believe, makes them highly qualified to appear in this thread.

Not quite. Viruses are NOT Eukaryotes. http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/pev/main.html

Basically a Eukaryote has cytoplasm, cytoskeletons, and other internal workings, and have more structures than a virus. And you chastise ME for not having enough information :roll:

 

...but we'll assume they are since its important for this point. Viruses are excellent at survival, but are not very complex.

Come again?! For one, my guess is that loads of evolutionists as well as virologists would disagree with you... Moreover, I think (and this is my opinion) it quite arrogant for scientists to state that viruses are less complex, since they have a very, very hard time understanding what certain viruses are, how they work or can be stopped. In fact, they are often unable to do so.

Thats your opinion. Valerina gave us the way complexity is determined, and Viruses don't have very many genes. Therefore, they aren't complex by the definition of complex.

Count Dooku is the strongest Star Wars character as depicted in the movies. All hail Christopher Lee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess to not really having been following this thread to religiously (excuse the pun), but as someone who does lots of work with wildlife in general at the Zoological Society of London, one thing that has occured to me in the last few years is the concept of a 'compassionate and loving god.'

 

I'm sorry, but if this supreme super-power can create an entire universe that is about thirteen billion years old, with all the vast and unimaginable distances and uncertainties involved, why create an eco-system on this particular atmospheric rock with the round the clock slaughter that is nature? It's not very loving or compassionate is it?

 

I'm not knocking anyone's faith here, but this is something that really bugs me about the concept of a compassionate divine-being. Why create a universe that's so borked?

 

Edit: ..and why the hell worship it? It's like prostrating yourself to the scientist who created something who's function is only to kill.

Edited by Jahled
http://www.jahled.co.uk/smallmonkeywars.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice new sig, J... As for a compassionate and loving god creating a society that exists only through kiling itself... A quicker means of getting to heaven? :? No clue... I haven't really been following this either except for the short posts...

12/14/07

Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la

Not gone, merely marching far away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the hell of it I'll say my personal belief.

 

1. In the begining God created the universe and Natural Law.

 

2. Natural Law is designed to guide the creation of Intelligent Life.

 

3. From the point at which true Intelligence Life arises through evolution God delivers a moral framework upon which to build from and to prevent them from destroying themselves.

 

4. As the species begins to mature God withdraws to allow the species to mature on its own.

Forum and RPG Membership:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/StellarMagic01/RaporaWarsTC.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/StellarMagic01/RaporaWarsRPG2.jpg

 

Signature:

Sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from Magic. -Arthur C. Clarke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jahled wrote:

 

... I'm sorry, but if this supreme super-power can create an entire universe that is about thirteen billion years old, with all the vast and unimaginable distances and uncertainties involved, why create an eco-system on this particular atmospheric rock with the round the clock slaughter that is nature? It's not very loving or compassionate is it?

 

I'm not knocking anyone's faith here, but this is something that really bugs me about the concept of a compassionate divine-being. Why create a universe that's so borked?...

 

It's called "free will". A gift from God, "to choose" what you want to do; destroy or create, help or kill, etc. If God was to make everything perfect (with no choices by the beings living therein) ... what's the point? Might as well leave the universe empty. :(

Finally, after years of hard work I am the Supreme Sith Warlord! Muwhahahaha!! What?? What do you mean "there's only two of us"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth Tex wrote:

 

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's called "free will". A gift from God, "to choose" what you want to do; destroy or create, help or kill, etc. If God was to make everything perfect (with no choices by the beings living therein) ... what's the point? Might as well leave the universe empty.

 

That doesn't hold for a couple reasons. The first being that "free will" implies conscious thought. Animals such as crickets, mealworms, and fish aren't intelligent enough to have decision making capability, and therefore must not have free will. Even if Free Will is a viable option for HUMANS, it doesn't hold for all the other living creatures, for whom death and pain (for some of the more complex animals) is part of everyday existance. Even without getting into the "do we REALLY have free will?" debate, which is more for another topic, we see that God in fact has established a a world filled with death and suffering. Sure, one could argue that no one died or suffered in the Garden of Eden (if you believe in it), but then you face the problem of a compassionate and benevolent God punishing a Panda Bear which is incapable of making choices, for the actions of a human.

Count Dooku is the strongest Star Wars character as depicted in the movies. All hail Christopher Lee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punishing a panda for- What in the world are you talking about? I don't recall seeing pandas in the bible, but maybe I need to read it more closely :? As for the free will argument, are you refering to the "Our brain is a chemical reaction, so if you studied it long enough (IE over the course of one's lifetime) you oculd figure out how they would react to a given situation with a given set of memories and such? That one messes with your head. Or are you referring to the "Everything we thought would come out bad came out good, so god must have influenced our choice to make it better" theory?

12/14/07

Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la

Not gone, merely marching far away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scathane
In response to the whole viruses are living thing. I searched the wikipedia entry for eukaryotes and virus did not appear once. Moreover, when I looked up "virus" in wikipedia they say "Because viruses are dependent on host cells for their replication they are generally not classified as "living"." Also, I looked it up and there are 3 Domains, the Eukaryotes, the Prokaryotes and the Archae and viruses aren't placed into any of these! That means that nearly all scientists feel that they are not truly alive. Viruses don't have nucleases or a way of reproducing between viruses or by themselves, but rather they must be inside another type of cell that is alive in order to reproduce. That's the main reason we don't understand how viruses work, mainly because they aren't alive and frankly anything that isn't alive and still manages to reproduce is quite puzzling.
You're right, I misread that... The term virus usually refers to particles that infect eukaryotes... My bad... :oops: Viruses are out of the equation, as far as I'm concerned...

 

As for the fact that the term "higher" and "lower" aren't used by all evolutionary theorists, its true that hardly any will agree in the way you are taking us to mean it (with evolution having a direction and stuff, even though I don't mean that), but all scientists (but maybe a select few) use it when calling things more complex, even if it isn't the best term.
I want to believe you (as well as TA) when you say that scientists generally agree on using the term in this context. But please, could you give me some examples (article, author, publication date OR a wikipedia or britannica referral). I mean, there is one quote to an externally linked paper which uses the term accordingly and I believe it's valid. But that proves that there are scientists who do so at most... Moreover, I can't find combinations like 'higher animal/organisms/etc.' in any of the wikipedia pages of Stephen Gould or Richard Dawkins for example... Now, I would be the last to say that this makes it conclusive... but it would help if you guys provided me with some links...

 

@dino: What do you say on usage of the term higher animal as being generally accepted to mean more complex in evolutionary terms?

 

Not quite. Viruses are NOT Eukaryotes. http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/pev/main.html

Basically a Eukaryote has cytoplasm, cytoskeletons, and other internal workings, and have more structures than a virus. And you chastise ME for not having enough information Rolling Eyes

And I admit that I made a mistake... Apart from that, my posts weren't meant to chastise you, TA. Moreover, if one can't handle strong argument the science isn't the field for him/her...

 

Punishing a panda for- What in the world are you talking about? I don't recall seeing pandas in the bible, but maybe I need to read it more closely :?
Well, seeing that God created everything and therefore must have created the Panda bear, I must admit that TA does have a point in addressing the duality of how it can be that an omnipotent being seems to be unable to refrain from being malevolent. I think it's odd to say the least...

 

You could argue that God simply chooses to be malevolent towards the panda but that, I agree, doesn't stand. The point is that there is this one possible situation in which god ceases to be omnipotent.

 

You could also argue that scientific evidence for the existence if an omnipotent being hasn't been found yet, solely based on the logical argument that science hasn't proven everything yet, so it might well be a possibility that this particular evidence is in the undiscovered category.

 

And there..., I must admit you are right. Period. The simple point is that I am unable to logically contradict that last argument... In fact, this was my point to begin with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mith is totaly right, we went to the same high school. and in my four years there i dont think evolution was brought up in any class. this is a high school in a town of less than 4000 and with 9 churches all christian. We evan had a substitute teacher who would give a prayer before every class. lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess to experiencing the sensation of 'having a cup of tea with Salvador Dali,' when observing some of the posts here.

 

The universe is about 13 billion years old. That's scientific fact, unless you reckon there's a global conspiray theory involving everyone with a physics PHD qualification in the world.

 

So what was the supreme entity 'hanging around for?' Why not get started serca 12 billion years ago and get God's image started? (I left a casual billion years to let the furnace of the universe to cool a bit)

http://www.jahled.co.uk/smallmonkeywars.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe is about 13 billion years old. That's scientific fact, unless you reckon there's a global conspiray theory involving everyone with a physics PHD qualification in the world.

 

Damn, he knows! NOW WE MUST KILL HIM!!!!1

12/14/07

Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la

Not gone, merely marching far away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah... I see. We must send in the toast to make sure you recieve a last jellyfish first, though! BEGONE! THIS IS NOT FOR YOUR MIND! :idea:

 

Edit: It strikes me that I may need to explain this to some people. Thus:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a169/DarthTofu/platypus.jpg

 

I'm pretty sure that explains everything...

12/14/07

Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la

Not gone, merely marching far away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in the response. My father is getting a biopsy today, and we're afraid its cancer. I'll get back into this topic once I find out whats going on with him. Of course, Val is the real expert on evolution of the two of us so you should ask her.
Count Dooku is the strongest Star Wars character as depicted in the movies. All hail Christopher Lee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for your dad, Toguroani... I hope that they caught it in the early stages and that kemo will take care of it. Having a family member going through cancer is not fun. I hope that your dad makes it through this... Pick out a nicewig for him.

12/14/07

Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la

Not gone, merely marching far away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called "free will". A gift from God, "to choose" what you want to do; destroy or create, help or kill, etc. If God was to make everything perfect (with no choices by the beings living therein) ... what's the point? Might as well leave the universe empty. :(

I hate to break it to you Tex, there really is no such thing as "FREE will". We get to make our own decisions, yes. However, there are consequences for every one of those decisions. In that respect there is no FREE choice. I'm not saying that all consequences are bad, just that they exist and there is at least one for every decision.

 

@Underdog: Thanks for the backup guy.

 

@ATA: We're all pullin for you and your dad. Anytime you need to talk through something you know where to come.

Chaos, Panic, Disorder, Destruction.....

My work here is done.

 

Grand AKmiral

Commander-in-Chief of BEAK Forces

(CINCBEAK) BEAK Imperium

"To BEAK is Divine!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitth_raw_nuruodo wrote:

 

I hate to break it to you Tex, there really is no such thing as "FREE will". We get to make our own decisions, yes. However, there are consequences for every one of those decisions. In that respect there is no FREE choice. I'm not saying that all consequences are bad, just that they exist and there is at least one for every decision.

 

I didn't say there "weren't" consequences with any choices. It's up to the individual to be intelligent and responsible enough to comprehend and accept the results from the choices they make. Unless someone's holding a blaster to your head Mitth, why wouldn't it be "free will"? Depending on the situation, your "logical or socially acceptable" choices maybe far and few between, but you could always go do something from the wildside if that's your choice. Even not making a choice ... is a choice :)

Finally, after years of hard work I am the Supreme Sith Warlord! Muwhahahaha!! What?? What do you mean "there's only two of us"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have a truly annoying theory that will mess with your head on the subject of free will- there is no such thing as it because all that your brain is is a chemical reaction! If you think about it certain chemicals, unique to each person, will react and go through different results and could theoretically allow someone to predict exactly how someone would react to a given situation where they know exactly what will happen in addition to all memories that the person has gone through. Thus there is no free will- its merely a chemical reaction in your head that results in you doing what that chemical reaction told you to do... Now start clawing at your head trying to get the brains to exit so you can be free! :lol:

12/14/07

Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la

Not gone, merely marching far away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scathane
Now start clawing at your head trying to get the brains to exit so you can be free! :lol:
I tried that once...

 

But a certain chemical reaction prevented me from doing so... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Copyright (c) 1999-2022 by SWRebellion Community - All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. Star Wars(TM) is a registered trademark of LucasFilm, Ltd. We are not affiliated with LucasFilm or Walt Disney. This is a fan site and online gaming community (non-profit). Powered by Invision Community

×
×
  • Create New...