+1>The Topic - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution
And so the debate begins. Please defend your views as openly as possible and give as much justification for them as you can.
The poll can be found http://www.micro-maul.co.uk/IDvsEvo.htmlhere.
Please explain both
OK.. here is my view on all of this..
For the record, I am am atheist, and do not personaly believe in any form of god or supreme being.
ID is an idea put about by those whom out of desperation at failing to impose their narrow minded religious views on the rest of us, have now resorted to this totally frivolous theory that natural evolution / selection on its own cant account for the rich diversity of life that we see around us and therefore a supreme inteligence must be involved.
At no time has any proponent of this theory presented one shred of evidence that would stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, they conveniently gloss over the wealth of evidence of evolution available in the fossil record and worse still, falsely promote their personal beliefs as science.
Dont misunderstand me, I will defend anyones right to believe in what ever they want, but I object to that belief being forced on others regardless of their own views.
Once you remove the fog of religion from this debate the scientific evidence in support of Darwin is unimpeachable.
So......the way I understand it ID is based upon the fact that all down to God or some other intelligence?? (BTW from what I understand its a WASP god that they think is responsible). However Darwinism is based upon the hope that all things go to plan as far as natural selection goes.
Problem is - neither theory takes Sods Law into account. It is that which has fuelled the origin and evolution of the diverse life on this planet (and others I might add). It doesnt matter in what form Sods Law takes when it happens - it just happens.
Darwinism is based on Natural Selection that in itself sods law plays a large part. It relys on no hope that things go to plan. For example, it would be sods law that humans were wiped out by rapid climate change at the point of which they come to understand the balance of the environment and start to do something to maintain that balance. Darwinism is much bigger than one animal outperforming the other.
Basically, ID bases its foundation on the view that we dont understand how everything came to be and therefore there must be something that does. I.E. that we were put here as we are, and not through a process of billions of years of evolution. In fact the earth could have been created yesterday with everything as it is.
The biggest problem with the arguement is that ID disproves darwinism by the simple statement that some higher being created everything as it is and therefore it would look like everything has evolved, cause thats the way it was designed.
Personally, that is not enough evidence for me.
(Message edited by kane on March 26, 2006)
So in 1 billion years theyll all look back on this and laugh wont they.
Go back one step.
Does everybody/anybody believe in the big bang theory, ie nothing exploded and became something?
Philip, the big bang could be the sum of something that equaled 0. A lot of + and - can account for 0,and still expand.
I myself am inclined to follow the Big Bang theory, and at least take Darwinism in account. Maybe not explaining everything, but its the logical part of it.
If ID is what fueled our origing of the species, the Inteligent Designer wasnt the most smart cookie in the jar.
For example, mamals have the playground between the waste disposal exits...
Or else, what would the inteligent designer think about the human way to adapt species. Dogs spring to mind. We have at one hand, the wolf and on the other hand a Yorkshire Terrier.
And now with genetics we have the fledgling power to create our own species....
ID always falls apart when you ask, who created the Inteligent Designer in the first place. If the answer is it has always existed then that discounts the big bang, unless our understanding of time is flawed and then it really gets me confussed. So the only logical conclusion (for me) is that Darwens Theory is closer to the truth until something better comes along, but that does not discount the exisitance of a higher inteligent interfering with this planet
In my opinion, the Big Bang and God are equally rediculous attempts to explain something we cannot comprehend. The Big Bang has us believe that all the Universe was in this little thing which went BOOM, but doesnt explain where that came from. Religious people never say where God came from, or what he did before he made the world.
I am, however, a firm believer in Sods Law. Really its the only theory that makes sense. The world and everything on it hates you, and wants to make life miserable for you and every oither person on the planet until we explode in a rage at the unfairness of it all and murder one another in each others beds.
Have a nice day
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks