The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/if-the-consensus-on-gw-is-wrong-it-is-just-a-26664468.aspx

Subject:  Re: Skeptic Mag on Global Warming Date:  5/20/2008  11:31 AM
Author:  bdhinton Number:  14700 of 27171

If the consensus on GW is wrong, it is just a current reminder that ANY scientific consensus can be wrong (like natural selection).
------------
That's a very simplistic view, and one that I don't believe can be supported.


Yes, I agree, using "ANY" is too strong. What I mean is "the consensus on the power of natural selection can be wrong", and nothing more.

In comparison, there is far more physical evidence supporting "scientific consensus" such as relativity, quantum mechanices, and evolution. So much so that evolution has scientific credibilty at least as high as the other two theories.


Sigh. I have no issue with "evolution" writ large, and neither do the major ID proponents. We have issue with certain parts of evolutionary theory, just like real evolutionary biologists do.

Suppose the prevailing naturalistic explanations for biodiversity are wrong. They will simply be replaced by other naturalistic speculations or simply be given a "we don't know" by the scientific community.

"We don't know" is fine with me. I have no problem with evolution being taught like that.

But I can sure evaluate the logic behind many of them, and I can tell in many cases when a scientific article gives testable detail or only Dawkinesque story-telling-as-science.
-----------
I don't think you can if the bulk of your information is coming from web sites that are promoting a particular point of view. No offense, but I think you let other people do your thinking for you.


I don't take offense. I've read a detailed description of the biochemical reactions that take place when a photon hits the retina. I've read so-called detailed descriptions of the evolution of the flagellum. There is absolutely no comparison in level of detail or testability of steps.

"The genetic code looks designed" is not what one would call strong evidence.

Not strong stated that way at least. How about the fact that DNA has a level of complexity AND specification that is only known to originate in an intelligent source?

The striped pattern of colors and great red spot observed in the atmosphere of Jupitor also "looks designed". Do you consider that evidence of an intelligent Jovian art group?


Pattern by itself does not indicate design.
Copyright 1996-2022 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us