"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[phildwyer]

Evolutionary theory is not at odds with creationism.

It depends what you mean by "creationism." Most people here seem to be using it to mean "Biblical literalism," so to save time and effort I followed their usage. Obviously, Biblical literalism is at odds with evolutionary theory. But you'd be quite right to say that Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution.

 

[Crispy]

A dice roll is not chaotic. The outcome may be determined precisely given all the initial conditions.

Only if you know those initial conditions to an infinite number of decimal places.

 

[Crispy]

But you'd be quite right to say that Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution.

I see. A good example would be an Intelligent Designer creating moths with random colour variations, and then the ones that blended in with their environments surviving, right?

 

[phildwyer]

How about viruses? You can't see them with human eyes, you need a microscope.

EDIT: I'm going somewhere with this - feel free to anticipate me

I'll have a go. The more extreme advocates of the view that science is a construct of human reason would say that anything that can only be perceived with by means of a human invention *is* a human invention. This was in fact the majority opinion among sceintists when microscopes were first invented. Personally though, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not.

 

[Fruitloop]

I see. A good example would be an Intelligent Designer creating moths with random colour variations, and then the ones that blended in with their environments surviving, right?

The great spaghetti monster created prokaryotes for a laugh, and everything else evolved from them.

 

[phildwyer]

I see. A good example would be an Intelligent Designer creating moths with random colour variations, and then the ones that blended in with their environments surviving, right?

No. Few people would be foolish enough to claim that moths, or any other creatures, were created ex nihilo.

 

[angry bob]

Only if you know those initial conditions to an infinite number of decimal places.

No ... that would only be true for a die with an infinite number of sides. With a six sided die there would be room for error.

 

[treefrog]

It depends what you mean by "creationism." Most people here seem to be using it to mean "Biblical literalism," so to save time and effort I followed their usage. Obviously, Biblical literalism is at odds with evolutionary theory. But you'd be quite right to say that Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution.

No, no it's not. It's utter bollocks bandied around as a way to compromise the fanatical, rabid nonsense of the Xtian fundies and scientific research.

Until someone shows me a proper, peer-reviewed paper that gives any evidence for intelligent design, I'll choose to believe the evidence garnered from 160 years of careful study, peer review and hard research.

 

[phildwyer]

the great spaghetti monster

You're doing yourself no credit with this, you know.

 

[Poi E]

You're doing yourself no credit with this, you know.

Quite. It's the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Jeez, Fruitloop, there goes your professional reputation.

 

[Fruitloop]

What's the difference between looking at a virus in a microscope and looking at an atom in a collision chamber? One of degree only, surely?

The world's smallest company logo etched with 35 Xenon atoms.

 

[angry bob]

It depends what you mean by "creationism." Most people here seem to be using it to mean "Biblical literalism," so to save time and effort I followed their usage. Obviously, Biblical literalism is at odds with evolutionary theory. But you'd be quite right to say that Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution.

That's true. Although from what I remember, in the original bible seven days was actually seven periods of time. So there is, perhaps, nothing contradictory in the bible either.

I'm agnostic by the way.

 

[phildwyer]

No, no it's not. It's utter bollocks bandied around as a way to compromise the fanatical, rabid nonsense of the Xtian fundies and scientific research.

Until someone shows me a proper, peer-reviewed paper that gives any evidence for intelligent design, I'll choose to believe the evidence garnered from 160 years of careful study, peer review and hard research.

There are many thousands of such papers. The fact that you are ignorant of them and passively waiting for someone to "show" them to you only bespeaks the totalitarian grip in which Darwinian fundamentalists hold our education system. Thankfully, that grip seems to be loosening recently.

 

[Fruitloop]

You're doing yourself no credit with this, you know.

If you can point out where your arguments have more logical consistency that mine I'll concede.

 

[phildwyer]

Quite. It's the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Jeez, Fruitloop, there goes your professional reputation.

He's not called "Fruitloop" for nothing, you know.

 

[phildwyer]

If you can point out where your arguments have more logical consistency that mine I'll concede.

I think it would be inadvisable to discuss this further with one known as "Fruitloop." Your tagline also gives me casue for concern. Only kidding, I'll get back to you, but I actually do have to do some real work for a bit. A tout a l'heure.

 

[Fruitloop]

.

 

[Poi E]

You're a battler, phil. Got to give you that.

 

[angry bob]

No, no it's not. It's utter bollocks bandied around as a way to compromise the fanatical, rabid nonsense of the Xtian fundies and scientific research.

Until someone shows me a proper, peer-reviewed paper that gives any evidence for intelligent design, I'll choose to believe the evidence garnered from 160 years of careful study, peer review and hard research.

It's not just christian fundamentalists who believe in a creator you know.

You refer to the evidence for evolution? This does not even address the question as to the origin of life. You may well question the deterministic nature of the universe ... that is a very debatable subject. But given a deterministic system, intelligent design does not conflict with evolution. So you can fully accept 160 years of research and still believe in a creator.

 

[phildwyer]

You're a battler, phil. Got to give you that.

Nothing I enjoy better mate. Really, though, I have to get to bleeding work, I shall return!

 

[Poi E]

. I have to get to bleeding work, I shall return!

Wish I could say the same. This job with no work is killing me.

 

[Fruitloop]

You refer to the evidence for evolution? This does not even address the question as to the origin of life. You may well question the deterministic nature of the universe ... that is a very debatable subject. But given a deterministic system, intelligent design does not conflict with evolution. So you can fully accept 160 years of research and still believe in a creator.

Logic-spaghetti - nothing follows from what precedes it. I detect once again the hand of the GSM (praised be he!)

 

[treefrog]

There are many thousands of such papers. The fact that you are ignorant of them and passively waiting for someone to "show" them to you only bespeaks the totalitarian grip in which Darwinian fundamentalists hold our education system. Thankfully, that grip seems to be loosening recently.

Where are they then?

Point me towards a paper in Nature or a similar journal and I promise I'll read it.

 

[treefrog]

It's not just christian fundamentalists who believe in a creator you know.

You refer to the evidence for evolution? This does not even address the question as to the origin of life. You may well question the deterministic nature of the universe ... that is a very debatable subject. But given a deterministic system, intelligent design does not conflict with evolution. So you can fully accept 160 years of research and still believe in a creator.

That's as maybe, but this "intelligent design" faux-theory seems to stem from a desire to make the creationist story more palatable to people who don't think that shepherds thousands of years ago had a better understanding of evolution than scientists today.

And besides, looking at human physiology, I see a lot of flaws in the design and construction. If we're designed by an "Intelligent Creator", why are we built so badly? Did he run out of lego or what?

 

[Crispy]

Where are they then?

Point me towards a paper in Nature or a similar journal and I promise I'll read it.

Hell, I'd like to see any sort of paper.

 

[Crispy]

What's the difference between looking at a virus in a microscope and looking at an atom in a collision chamber? One of degree only, surely?

The world's smallest company logo etched with 35 Xenon atoms.

That's where I was going

No, you can't see atoms with your eyes (etc.)

But...

You can use data gathered with such instruments to make predictions about the world that you CAN see with your own eyes.

What's different about eyes and microscopes? Ears and radar dishes? We know how all these things work and work backwards from there.

 

[Fruitloop]

Totally. In fact we know far more about the operation of telescopes and radar dishes than we do about the workings of eyes and ears. Why trust one lot and not the other?

 

[treefrog]

Totally. In fact we know far more about the operation of telescopes and radar dishes than we do about the workings of eyes and ears. Why trust one lot and not the other?

Beacuse the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't let microscopes grow on trees!

 

[angry bob]

Logic-spaghetti - nothing follows from what precedes it. I detect once again the hand of the GSM (praised be he!)

You are quite welcome to believe in whatever god you choose. Or rather ... to give god what ever name you choose.

 

[angry bob]

That's as maybe, but this "intelligent design" faux-theory seems to stem from a desire to make the creationist story more palatable to people who don't think that shepherds thousands of years ago had a better understanding of evolution than scientists today.

Not usre what you mean by this. What have shepherds got to do with it?

And besides, looking at human physiology, I see a lot of flaws in the design and construction. If we're designed by an "Intelligent Creator", why are we built so badly? Did he run out of lego or what?

mysterious ways!!