Creationism vs. Evolution

now that's what i'm talkin' about. any person who denounces evolution should have zero input on what my kids are being taught in school because they are complete tools.

 

The ID people's "scientific evidence" is a sham. There is not a shred of what they purport as evidence to support their silliness.

It's not an either/or debate.

No matter how you dress creationism up, ID is pure hokum and the only classroom where it belongs is religious studies.

 

B --
Who's the guy who's speaking?

 

I tend toward the tack that, when it comes to evolution, it is quite real. Garry Trudeau illustrated this in a simple yet logical way in drawing a strip showing a doctor giving a patient a dose of antibiotics for some malady. The doctor asked the patient if he believed in evolution and the patient said no, he did not, and wondered why he asked.

"Because I need to know if I should give you the injection for the baseline bacteria and not the one that will counter the version that has evolved and is no longer cowed by the original medication."

 

Actually, the debate is entirely philosphical.
You can choose to believe that all of this was happenstance, or that there was a guiding force.
There are those in the scientific community who believe all the evolutionary science, but do not buy the idea that it's all some kind of happy accident.
There are those in the creation community who believe the Bible is a literal history.
There are those in the scientific community who believe evolution is random.
There are those who believe in creation who do not deny the obvious physical evidence of evidence of evolution.
At its core, it's still a philosophical debate.

 

Sorry, Twoback, but while there are beliefs that certain scientists hold in regards to religion (they are people) it isn't close to being a philosophical debate. That would imply that there is equal evidence for both. This isn't the case.

While someone could argue the "background" in a philosophical setting, that idea shouldn't enter into a discussion regarding facts. It isn't a legitimate discussion.

 

But these alleged facts of evolution only take you so far.
As you go back far enough, you have water and oorganic building blocks that just become life. These days we call it abiotic synthesis. Pasteur called it spontaneous generation.
But biological evolution is just one part. Astrophysics can tell us a lot about the evolution of the universe, but much is still speculative or unanswered.
If you keep asking 'And what caused that?', it takes you past the facts.

 

It only takes you "past the facts" if you keep answering.

It is very much okay to say "That is yet to be discovered." There is no reason to just make shit up because we don't have the information. Just accept that the information isn't there and move on.

 

Your buddy obviously didn't see the waterfall I saw yesterday.

 

My momma weren't no monkey!

 

The inteligent design crowd is fond of saying that evolution is only a theory, but I also remember somebody posting on another thread about this that the term theory is used differently in the scientific community than it is in the general population.
Also, doens't anyone else find it odd that the same people who think creationism should be taught in schools also dismiss global warming as junk science and many of them also seem to think the dangers of smoking are overstated?

 

Yes, and stem-cell research isn't a real science either.
For some, science is real only when it supports what you already believe.
It is supposed to be the other way around -- science provides the evidence and then you decide what is true.
I'm not saying there is no room for faith -- I've made it clear that I'm a Christian -- but I think to completely dismiss science or faith is just incredibly closed-minded.