Quote:
Originally Posted by RazielRedel
I completely agree. I was merely stating the fact that I find it funny that people think that A-biogenisis is so much more plausible than an intelligent design.
|
I'd like to take this point up, if you don't mind. My personal opinion of Intelligent Design happens to be shared by the majority of the atheist (and scientific) community.
Over the course of the past two hundred years, enormous advances have been made in understanding the universe in terms of empirical data and scientific means. As scientific knowledge has increased, we've had many inventions such as the light bulb, the microwave, the motor vehicle, etc. Also with the increase of scientific knowledge we see a drastic decrease in the volume of "fundamentalist Christians". Looking back, it's clear the phases that science has pushed religion back, and it's also clear how religion has pretty much desperately clawed at the ground as it was being forced into recession. Where once we believed that the Sun orbited the Earth (Geocentricism), we have established that we are not the center of the solar system (Heliocentricism), let alone the galaxy or universe. Where once we fathomed tornadoes and hurricanes as divine vengeance or displeasure, we now understand that they are complex weather systems that occur frequently in nature by plainly natural forces. Where once we believed that we were the only form of
homo sapien, we now see evidence of prior forms of our species, even going back into proto-human ancestors; not to mention dinosaurs.
With every new scientific discovery, a hole is plugged and "God" shrinks a little bit more. This "God of the Gaps" has long been recognized by those of us in the scientific community who are moderately far-sighted as condemned to one day be reduced to nothing. That's why we don't believe in Intelligent Design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazielRedel
I was mainly refering to the holes in the idea of macro-evolution. The theory that every living organism has a common ancestor. There are simply quite a few examples within the animal world that evolution has no explanation for. Mostly examples of symbiosis like the Boxer Crab which uses Anemones as weapons. I'm not claiming that evolution has by any means been disproved, I just find it odd that so many people are completely unwilling and actually aggressive about not listening to theories that come from a different perspective. I may be incorrect about that and it may entirely come from my own slanted experience, but it has none the less been my experience that scientist are just as unwilling to question evolution as you say that religious people are to question what their preacher says.
|
There are two major flaws in your understanding of evolution that I easily point out in this paragraph. The first is the notion of "macro-evolution" occurring naturally. Simply put, macro-evolution is nothing more than the missing pieces in the fossil record. These missing pieces are bound to happen; consider it. Five thousand years from now, do you think the bones in the local cemetery will still be there? How about ten thousand years from now? Twenty? Do you know that anatomically modern humans, according to carbon-dating, have been around for
one hundred thousand years? Apply this knowledge to considering how many fossils of previous forms of hominoids have been recovered. A handfull. These are fossils that are up to a
million years old, sometimes over!
It's not that we disregard theories, we consider them for their validity, certainly, but most of the time it's all the same Intelligent Design stuff that's been scientifically disproven.
The second is the incorrect notion that evolution always makes the evolved form better fit for the environment. Every gene has two parts that code for different things. Occasionally you'll find that one trait that makes the species better fit overall, but it also introduces a rather useless feature that tagged along because it was on the same gene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazielRedel
That may be true. But my experience with every other religion has been that you have to pick yourself up and do it. That it takes work to reach it and if you aren't good enough you won't make it and no one will shed a tear. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
|
I assume that you're talking about Buddhism, where you must succeed at one level to pass to the next on the ladder to enlightenment? If I'm right, you certainly do have it wrong -- they are supportive of each other in their quest for enlightenment.
I just thought that I would clear up those things.