Furious evolution debate hits Kenyan museum

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

speaking throughs quotes today, eh?

Say what you will, but I find them very interesting.

[Shazam]

Uh, many universities have religious studies courses. I took one at the U of C. It was very objective and dealt with the philosophical impact of religious texts.

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Say what you will, but I find them very interesting.

I was not making a negative comment but rather an observation. Sorry Troutman if you thought I was mocking you.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I guess it's better safe then sorry.

Is it safer to believe in God though? What if the supernatural being that oversees the universe is looking for those people who are gullible enough to believe in the story of God.

Freedom of thought and the freedom to choose our own direction in life is the ultimate gift. I happen to think that the human brain is unable to comprehend the notion of no absolute beginning, that the concept of infinite time is often too hard to think about, thus we have to have creation of something.

The story of Adan and Eve is a story. I think it's illogical to believe in creationism to that level. It's a story from the Bible, a document that acts as a moral compass for some people in humanity.

To think that we are created in God's image (the ultimate sign of vanity in my opinion) is so narrow minded in the concept of the universe and time that I can't believe in it.

As for the original discussion of this event in Kenya.. how can you restrict people from alternate views of the world? If Christianity is the true faith (highly unlikely) then those who are true and worth of God's love will return regardless of what information is presented to them.

Religion should be a moral compass, but it's controlled by people. People crave power, in this case the control of millions of people. To dictate what they should think. It's moral corruption at it's finest.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

I was not making a negative comment but rather an observation. Sorry Troutman if you thought I was mocking you.

No worries mate. I didn't think you were mocking me. But you can if you want. We lawyers have thick skins!

More:

MR. DAWKINS:

In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.

But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/

[Cheese]

Richard Dawkins is fantastic...a genius, heres another quote:

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”


Creationism...Gods gift to the ignorant