Evolution Theory and how different forms of life arose

[Frank_Macky]

Right now, the orthodox scientific explanation for how different species arose is Evolution Theory. So-called "Intelligent Design" is NOT by any means, a proper scientific theory or even hypothesis. However, it does not follow that Evolution Theory is the ONLY possible explanation for the origin of life and its different forms.

The problems with those dolts propounding "intelligent design" is that not only they are a distraction from proper scientific inquiry but that they end up polarizing the debate. If someone asks me if I believe in "Evolution Theory" as a complete and satisfactory explanation for the structure of life forms and I say "no", does that mean then that I believe in the whole stupid unsupportable, untestable, improperly put-forth notion of "intelligent design"? OF COURSE NOT!!

There are some other theories which, while not currently accepted by mainstream science, seem to be put together well enough to merit at least some consideration.

One of these is the theory of "morphogenetic fields" advanced by Rupert Sheldrake and some others which have similar notions. This book: http://www.amazon.com/On-Origin-Form.../dp/1556438869 in particular, talks about alternative or supplemental theories to Darwin's theory of Evolution.

If the evangelicals stopped distracting us with their "intelligent design" noise bull$hit and allowed people to think deeply and clearly about the problem, then we may actually end up finding some real answers. The key thing here is not to be fooled by them into believing that it's got to be an either-or issue and to realize that there are many many other far more intelligent, educated and well-threshed out alternative theories than "God did it".

[SmartDessa]

intelligent design is hypocrisy

[Frank_Macky]

^ True. The hypocrisy is that ID is not science, yet is pretending to be.

You probably had some other reason in mind, but at least we both agree ID is hypocrisy.

[supremepoku]

Evolutionists maintain evolution is a rational theory and, being rational, does not need empirical evidence for it to be true. This is the approach of the Rationalist. Nothing new here.

Creationists make a similar claim that creation is a rational theory that does not need empirical evidence for it to be true. Again, nothing new.

Perhaps the problem is that you can only believe one of these because neither can be empirically proved. And no one was there when it happened to make a record.

Then there is the Deist who finds both positions to be extravagant and the only possible explanation is Intelligent Design. But where did the Intelligent Designer come from?

And before any evolutionist states creation to be non-rational I would suggest you take a look at some of the greats in science, starting with: Isaac Newton who was a student of Theology and saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation; or Boyle, noted for his writings in theology and his lectures to combat the "witless philosophers" of his day who denied creation, even way back then. Then there is Lord Kelvin ...

Perhaps a more interesting question is what causes us to believe either of the two positions? And why the irrational fervency and anger?

[kuroihikari]

? Evolution does have empirical evidence.

[codeofwarrior]

Another one of those rationalism vs. empiricism topics again. Blah.

[stifbend]

Evolutionists maintain evolution is a rational theory and, being rational, does not need empirical evidence for it to be true. This is the approach of the Rationalist. Nothing new here.

Creationists make a similar claim that creation is a rational theory that does not need empirical evidence for it to be true. Again, nothing new.

Perhaps the problem is that you can only believe one of these because neither can be empirically proved. And no one was there when it happened to make a record.

Then there is the Deist who finds both positions to be extravagant and the only possible explanation is Intelligent Design. But where did the Intelligent Designer come from?

And before any evolutionist states creation to be non-rational I would suggest you take a look at some of the greats in science, starting with: Isaac Newton who was a student of Theology and saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation; or Boyle, noted for his writings in theology and his lectures to combat the "witless philosophers" of his day who denied creation, even way back then. Then there is Lord Kelvin ...

Perhaps a more interesting question is what causes us to believe either of the two positions? And why the irrational fervency and anger?

Okay. So creationism does not entail ID? Kind of confused as to the distinction of creationistic claims and deistic claims.

And how does Newton's, Boyle's and etc. endeavors with theology create credible weight on the creationism theory? Are you making appeals to authority to bolster the claim that creationism can stand on equal ground with evolution?

[Frank_Macky]

Evolutionists maintain evolution is a rational theory and, being rational, does not need empirical evidence for it to be true. This is the approach of the Rationalist. Nothing new here.

Evolution theory is both rational AND has evidence for it.

"Intelligent Design" IS NOT EVEN A PROPER THEORY! It doesn't even give a hypothesis that can be tested!

"ID" is nothing but a feeble attempt by Protestant Evangelicals to get people to still take their stupid religious myths seriously in the face of incontrovertible evidence from science that their ideas of "God literally creating life" have about as much intellectual weight as the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth. They've basically spent millions of dollars lobbying the US government to undermine science education. In fact, this whole "ID" issue is mainly a US one - the rest of the world is not stupid enough to waste time on this issue.

Catholics - despite their adoption of many spurious philosophical ideas - are at least enlightened/sane enough to realize that these literal fundamentalist interpretations of the bible are just indefensible for anyone who can actually think straight.

[supremepoku]

Oh, I forgot to paste the link. I copied and pasted a reply from someone from telegraph as I was reading an article of the "missing link between man and apes found."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/e...pes-found.html

Then, later read this: 'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302131719.htm

There's so many articles found claiming missing link discovery and later on debunked.

[Mustaine]

Oh, I forgot to paste the link. I copied and pasted a reply from someone from telegraph as I was reading an article of the "missing link between man and apes found."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/e...pes-found.html

Then, later read this: 'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302131719.htm

There's so many articles found claiming missing link discovery and later on debunked.

The term "missing link" is non-scientific. It's an ignorant oversimplification by the mainstream media coined at a time when the public barely undestands evolution. Scientists use the term transitional fossils which of course, is not "missing".

[noon3]

I need to reread this thread later, gaved me a headache though nevertheless interesting.

[gotta lick it]

evolution is brought about by adaption