The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution


Subject:  Re: Jon Stewert on ID Date:  11/27/2007  7:58 PM
Author:  1poorguy Number:  12372 of 26642

"God" is not a scientific theory, and I feel no obligation to use the tools of science to explore the concept beyond what they can handle.

I think we can all agree with this. And since it is NOT a scientific theory it has NO PLACE in the science classroom. Thanks for coming around, Bryan! I knew it would happen eventually!

Now if we can just get those other radicals presently trying to force this non-scientific theory into the classroom to stop, everything will be peachy!

It only fits when you don't require any verification that such a thing could actually happen, but rather assume it.

We may not be able to witness the evolution of the toxin injector into the flagellum*. However, it is not unreasonable to infer it happened given that they differ only by a few proteins. In any event, this was never really intended as proof of evolution. Behe dragged it into the mix as proof of ID. Biologists simply have shown that it is not inconsistent with evolution, as Behe maintains it is. They are refuting his claim.

I really don't know how to change your perception of things.

Speaking only for myself, scientifically valid data is just about the only way to do it.

However, let me elaborate a bit on the "God is a screwup" angle. You may already realize this, but what's at issue here is the notion that 'God' is all-powerful, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc, etc. If that is the case, then it doesn't make sense that he would design things with such obvious flaws. Stuff that human engineers would fix (if it was within their power to do so, of course). After all, he's GOD. It is inconsistent that he would have such design errors if he is truly GOD. And if he really did the best he could, then he's less than perfect and the typical notion of him flies out the window (along with the three major religions of the world today). You may question perceptions of the "flaws", but speaking as a physicist/engineer my perception is that they design could be improved. Yes, a lot of stuff works really well. But face it, we're kluge's.

Contrast this to a shark. Sharks are nearly perfect. If I was going to design a sea predator, that would be it. Streamlined, powerful, replacement teeth, does not get cancer (I knew a girl in grad school studying immunology, and her project was trying to figure out why sharks never get cancer), has enormously sensitive sensor arrays, etc. Based on the fossil record they have changed very little in 100M years ( They are nearly perfect. An engineering marvel. Perhaps God designed them in his own image(??).

1poorguy (...and "yes", if I were designing sharks I would make them smarter since that's the only thing they lack, but then they don't really seem to need much more intelligence than they have)

*I didn't witness the evolution of the Grand Canyon either, but I'm reasonably sure the Colorado River did it.
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us