Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I recall one of the old 'debate contests' or maybe it was when they first set up the APP board, one of the very first debate questions was "Evolution or Intelligent Design?" Routinely, we will see some pinhead indicate they "believe in evolution, not creationism!" Time and time again, we see this argument presented, as if a theory on evolution of life is somehow in competition with a theory on origin of life. As if we have a giant imaginary wrestling ring, in one corner is 'evolution' and in the other corner is 'creationism' and there must be one winner and one loser in the end. Over and over, we see pinheads articulate their ideas as if they believe there are two arguments for origin of life, evolution and creation, and this is absolutely false, and utterly ridiculous, since one of these has absolutely nothing to do with origin of life. There are actually several theories for origin of life, and NONE of them are Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin proposed theories on how species evolved and changed, this has nothing to do with how life emerged to begin with. The theory regarding this, is called "Abiogenesis" and the reason it doesn't sound as familiar as Darwin's theory of evolution, is because it is much newer and doesn't have as much credence throughout the scientific community, in fact, many scientists are skeptical of the theory. Nevertheless, that is the appropriate opponent in the wrestling match with Creationism.
We continue to have this ongoing debate over teaching ID in schools, and it is also rooted in this ignorance that evolution somehow "trumps" ID and makes it irrelevant. Or that in order for evolution theory to be true, ID must be refuted, and visa-versa. Again, these are two different theories about two different things. I personally think teaching ID in schools is okay, in fact, it gives educators the perfect opportunity, even in a science class, to discuss why science of the physical universe can't apply to spiritual things, and spiritual things can never meet the criteria for physical science. I think any time we decide something CAN'T be taught, we miss an opportunity to educate. While it may be extremely hard to comprehend, ID is a completely valid scientific theory in principle, and doesn't necessitate the "existence" of any religiously-based concept of a deity.
Before you begin screaming about that last sentence, read it again carefully. Do we assume we can only explain intelligence as we understand it on Earth? That any outside intelligent force, would have to be God or some religiously-based concept we've developed? This would be ludicrous, indeed. Is there at least the possibility in your mind, that we might just not know everything about intelligence, or what form it may take elsewhere in our universe? And are we to conclude, there can't possibly be any other plains, dimensions or realms to our universe, other than the one we know as the physical realm, simply because we have developed a system of understanding for our physical realm, known as science? If that is the case, which I strongly suspect it to be with most anti-ID nitwits, it's really no different than someone with a religious understanding of the spiritual realm, disbelieving and refuting science of the physical realm, is it?
The thing that is fascinating about ID as a theory, is how it won't ever go away. People will continue to speculate, regardless of the culture wars or Atheist Crusades. This is largely due to the unanswered mysteries which science has failed to deliver much on. It sort of dips into a philosophical point, even with the most base concepts for origins through abiogenetics, it is not explained how material with such powerful life-starting elements originated to begin with. What caused the Big Bang? Did the elements and components which form life, exist in some form before the Big Bang? These are things our physical science simply can't answer, or provide any plausible explanation for. We must just accept all this miraculous life-teaming anti-matter simply "was" and then it exploded into matter and formed our universe, for no particular reason.
We look out further into our universe every day, and we find more and more phenomenon out there, which our science had not predicted, some of which, seems to completely contradict what scientists had thought before. Does this mean science "fails?" Not at all, but it does mean that science can't always answer every question, and sometimes it can answer them incorrectly. The key to understanding science, is to understand it's limitations and boundaries, and to also understand possibility, as it applies to science.
We continue to have this ongoing debate over teaching ID in schools, and it is also rooted in this ignorance that evolution somehow "trumps" ID and makes it irrelevant. Or that in order for evolution theory to be true, ID must be refuted, and visa-versa. Again, these are two different theories about two different things. I personally think teaching ID in schools is okay, in fact, it gives educators the perfect opportunity, even in a science class, to discuss why science of the physical universe can't apply to spiritual things, and spiritual things can never meet the criteria for physical science. I think any time we decide something CAN'T be taught, we miss an opportunity to educate. While it may be extremely hard to comprehend, ID is a completely valid scientific theory in principle, and doesn't necessitate the "existence" of any religiously-based concept of a deity.
Before you begin screaming about that last sentence, read it again carefully. Do we assume we can only explain intelligence as we understand it on Earth? That any outside intelligent force, would have to be God or some religiously-based concept we've developed? This would be ludicrous, indeed. Is there at least the possibility in your mind, that we might just not know everything about intelligence, or what form it may take elsewhere in our universe? And are we to conclude, there can't possibly be any other plains, dimensions or realms to our universe, other than the one we know as the physical realm, simply because we have developed a system of understanding for our physical realm, known as science? If that is the case, which I strongly suspect it to be with most anti-ID nitwits, it's really no different than someone with a religious understanding of the spiritual realm, disbelieving and refuting science of the physical realm, is it?
The thing that is fascinating about ID as a theory, is how it won't ever go away. People will continue to speculate, regardless of the culture wars or Atheist Crusades. This is largely due to the unanswered mysteries which science has failed to deliver much on. It sort of dips into a philosophical point, even with the most base concepts for origins through abiogenetics, it is not explained how material with such powerful life-starting elements originated to begin with. What caused the Big Bang? Did the elements and components which form life, exist in some form before the Big Bang? These are things our physical science simply can't answer, or provide any plausible explanation for. We must just accept all this miraculous life-teaming anti-matter simply "was" and then it exploded into matter and formed our universe, for no particular reason.
We look out further into our universe every day, and we find more and more phenomenon out there, which our science had not predicted, some of which, seems to completely contradict what scientists had thought before. Does this mean science "fails?" Not at all, but it does mean that science can't always answer every question, and sometimes it can answer them incorrectly. The key to understanding science, is to understand it's limitations and boundaries, and to also understand possibility, as it applies to science.
