anybody see the movie idiocracy? it's about how humans 500 years in the future are devolved, and the smartest two people alive are an under-achieving army librarian and a hooker, both of whom were frozen and forgotten about in a 21-century cryogenics experiment. watch this intro: whether or not you believe in darwin's theory, it's easy to see how smart people could become extinct- especially given the masses of reality television/paris hilton fans apparent in today's world.
Evolution isn't everything it's cracked up to be. There are a few drawbacks and mistakes. Look aroung and you will know what I mean.
I have a better question and since it's along the same lines as this one I will piggyback it on top of this thread. Since evolution has nothing to do with beliefs, asking whether someone believes in it or not seems like a question that can't really be meaningfully answered. Any possible answer is doomed from the onset to be confounded by the very configuration of the question. But asking the reverse is quite answerable since the reverse relies exclusively on belief or faith. So, who believes that some "God" fill in your own deity here, just popped us into existence one day 6000 years ago and we have basically been the same ever since? Everything else on earth was also popped in at some point for our benefit. And who believes that we all sprang from one man, Adam and one woman, Eve who proceeded to cheese God off and condemn the rest of us to a life of original sin that we must spend the rest of our lives making up for? Any takers?
Yeah, I'll take that. Though your sarcasm is unappreciated and you subtly misrepresent the position I hold.
They'd probably still be human, just not H. sapiens sapiens. The real question might be, would we still be considered 'human' and not some beast barely risen above the level of savages. (With the way we treat fellow members of our own species, maybe we haven't.)
Good point Tony. I guess we've all forgotten how Cro-Magnon dissed Neanderthal after they gained dominance.
Evolution has been proved time and time again, and I am not talking about the conjectures of Darwin. I can remember reading 20 years ago that evolution had been proven in the wolves in Alaska, I forget the details but evolution was recorded by watching segregated islands of the animals. Today this is proven with fruit flies and bacteria not to mention the viruses. To deny this proof is to stick your head in the sand. But Darwins idea that the strong survive and the weak perish is what causes evolution.
I think that one of the biggest stumbling blocks for rational discourse, or even civilized speech, in debates of evolution vs. creationism (or anything that pits science vs. faith) is a tendency for those on both sides to speak with 100% certainty. Yes, I am 100% convinced that all humans evolved from other hominids, but as a reasonable person I have to admit that it is possible, though very improbable, that I could find strong evidence to the contrary. All knowledge is provisional, and nothing is ever proven 100%, except perhaps for math. I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt, but know that surety could be upset at some point in the future. For the sake of diplomacy, it usually seems better to phrase things with this in mind. One of the things that really irks me about some—but not all—creationists and fundamentalists (they are not necessarily the same thing) is that they seem 100% certain and are unwilling to entertain the idea that they could be wrong. Items pertaining to faith tend to be like that; I suppose that’s the very definition of faith. Telling other people they are foolish because they have beliefs different than your faith (and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in this thread do that) is arrogance. It’s also arrogance to tell people that they are foolish because of their faith—we all have our own personal reasons for our beliefs, and to assert that you know better than someone else what personal faiths they should hold is another form of arrogance. I also think that speaking in a way that displays this form of arrogance usually provokes those on the opposite side into hardening their stance and speaking similarly, which is great for verbal fireworks but bad for trying to persuade or even make yourself look like a decent human.
I can remember going to piano recital at a different church than we attended. In the stones that lead up to the church that you walked on had incriptions, most of which I could understand except for Faith. I hated piano recital more than anything in the world but asked Mom what Faith meant. She said that is was believeing in the unseen. Then I gave a half burro rendition of Greig's, prelude in C minor.
I think you are confusing two things. Natural selection has been proved time and time again, as with the wolves, fruit flies and bacteria. Now, there is every reason to believe that this process can be extended to the belief that lower forms of life can evolve into higher forms, but to the best of my knowledge, this remains a hypothesis. In fact, I've read some studies which suggest that once a species reaches the point where its survival characteristics support a population large enough to consume all of the available food supply in its habitat, not only does the population stop growing, but the species apparently stops adapting. I think it is sticking ones head in the sand to rule out the possibility that there are additional undiscovered mechanisms at work, and that everything that can possibly be known is already known. At one time, some folks suggested that the US Patent office should be closed because everything useful that could be invented had been invented. This was around the year 1900. Certainty can be embarassing. So I think it is more accurate to say that evolution represents the best thinking that science has to offer at the present time, but further research may uncover new information about the origins of life and species.
There is no problem with evolutionary theory. I don't mean that we have all of the answers or have filled in all of the blanks, I mean that the only reason that there is any controversy at all is because as evolutionary concepts began to explain the natural world, long held church dogma found that explanations that had previously been attributed to the work of "God" were suddenly understood and this threatened the very validity of church doctrine. Evolutionists weren't threatened by the existence of the church but the church was definitely threatened by this new form of science and launched a disinformation campaign to discredit the theory of evolution. The much more powerful church has been fighting this battle from the beginning while the much weaker but steadily growing body of evidence to support the theory of evolution has grown in fits and starts. You might view this as the ultimate case of muddying the debate but in reality, there is no debate. Comparing evolution to faith is like comparing worms to walnuts. For instance, in science, something has to be able to be disproved or at a minimum you have to be able to conceptualize how something may be disproved even if you can't physically or technologically accomplish it. Faith on the other hand, has God at it's core and there is no way to disprove God. You can't even think of a way to disprove the existence of God. You can't apply science to God and you can't apply faith to science. Stifling truth is nothing new for the powerful church establishment. Well-documented inquisitions and tribunals have for centuries called into their courts some of the greatest thinkers in history and have made each of them recant truths under the threat of death. Truths that we accept as a given today because we were able to moved out from under the powerful influence of the dogma of the church. This evolutionary challenge is no different than earlier attempts by the church to maintain it's dominance over society and set back the quest for truth and understanding of our world. The genie is out of the bottle and God is under the microscope for a change.
Not confused, evolution has been proven time and time again by fossil records... Bluegill...I think to say that evolution is 100% factual is not incorrect...I do agree that it is arrogance to belittle another's beliefs...but this is not a matter of belief and should not in any way be confused as such. All the details have not been worked out of course so it remains a theory, but this does not change the fact that fossil records have charted the evolution of many different creatures thus it can be said for certain that evolution is a reality. here is a good way to explain the difference between a theory, scientific theory, and fact: evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. If I say there are pink unicorns...that is pure theory...If we all SEE pink unicorns but there is still debate about how they came about...that is scientific theory...If we all see the unicorn and science has fully explained and proven through rigorous scientific method where the unicorn came from, how it came about beyond any doubt....that is fact... Evolution is a scientific theory...the facts are there...the exact process is still debated. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Has anyone ever read the account of Charles Darwin and his world trip in the Beagle? I've got a copy and read it a couple of years ago. It was fascinating but I also noticed that towards the end he was rather sloppy and prejudiced in his science.
Bonedigger, prejusticed in his science? It is basic cause and effect. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. To all our city folk.
Ben: Darwin prejudiced? If he was prejudiced then why did it take him so many years (somewhere around 15) for the publication of his book? He studied, and restudied everything that he wrote. He was a careful scientist, and observer of nature. Perhaps prejudiced is not the correct word, perhaps convinced is better?
